DINEX COMMERCIAL SOLUTION OPENING - Final.pdf

MISSION AND INSTALLATION CONTRACTING

COMMAND (MICC) / ARMY SUSTAINMENT COMMAND

(ASC)

Army Food Service Program Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO)

FINAL (dated 22 JAN 2026)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

1.0 Introduction and Background 3

2.0 Purpose 3

3.0 General Information 4

4.0 Collaboration and Teaming Opportunities 6

5.0 CSO Phased Approach 6

6.0 Evaluation Process (All Phases) 9

7.0 Phase 1 Solution Brief Instructions 9

8.0 Phase 2 Site Visit & Pitch Instructions 11

9.0 Phase 3 Written Proposal Instructions 14

10.0 Development Rights for the Prototype 19

11.0 Terms and Conditions Development 19

12.0 Award 20

13.0 Iterative Prototyping 20

14.0 Follow-On Production 21

15.0 OTA Terms and Conditions 21

Attachment 1 Area of Interest: Enhanced Food Service Operations for T2COM Garrisons

1.0 Introduction and Background

Food is a critical enabler of military readiness, sustaining Soldiers in training, on missions and during deployments. The Army Food Program ensures service members receive nutritious, high-quality meals—whether in dining facilities, field kitchens, or operational environments. A well-nourished, motivated, and resilient force is better equipped to defend the nation and deter adversaries.

The Army Sustainment Command (ASC), as the Army Food Program Manager, provides direct support and oversight for hundreds of dining facilities worldwide, ensuring consistent standards and execution.

The Army Transformation & Training Command (T2COM) [formerly Training &

Doctrine Command (TRADOC)] is responsible for the initial training and professional development of every Soldier, preparing the Army to deter, fight, and win on any future battlefield. To recruit and retain a world-class fighting force, Soldiers must have access to convenient, healthy, and appealing food options that meet their dining needs and preferences.

The Army has already launched a robust modernization effort through the Campus Style Dining Venue (CSDV) Initiative at select FORSCOM garrisons. However, the needs of T2COM garrisons are distinct: operations must align with fixed training schedules and concentrated dining flow rates. To meet these challenges, the Army is launching the Dining Excellence Initiative, or “DINEX” with the goal of seeking innovative, flexible solutions that deliver superior outcomes compared to the existing food service model.

2.0 Purpose

This CSO is issued by the Mission and Installation Contracting Command

(MICC), Installation Readiness Center (IRC), under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4022. It is not subject to the Competition in Contracting Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, or the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement.

The IRC seeks innovative solutions and new capabilities for a single Area of

Interest (AoI): Enhanced Food Service Operations for T2COM garrisons (provided as Attachment 1). Solutions may involve the introduction of new technologies or procedures not currently used by the Army, and/or modifications to existing practices that deliver significant financial or operational benefits.

The IRC anticipates awarding a fixed-price agreement for a single prototype, based on the four (4) phase evaluation process described in this CSO. The Agreements Officer will negotiate terms and conditions directly with the participant, including milestone payments, and will execute the Other Transaction Agreement on behalf of the Government.

The prototype will be tested at two locations: Fort Lee, Virginia and Fort Rucker, Alabama. Any successful prototype project (or portions thereof) may be selected for a follow-on fixed-price production agreement or contract under 10 U.S.C. 4022(f), to be implemented across some or all of the remaining T2COM locations identified below. The government may, at its discretion, select either a single differing T2COM location or multiple other locations for prototype development.

If the prototype is not advanced to production, the Government may re-engage with previous participants under this CSO or issue a new CSO to obtain alternative solutions.

3.0 General Information

3.1 CSO Points of Contact

Questions regarding this CSO may be sent via email to the following individuals:

T2COM LOCATIONS

Note: Fort Leavenworth DFAC is currently scheduled to close in CY2026

• Mr. Jeff Harris (Jeffery.d.harris.civ@army.mil)

• Mr. Michael Schneider (Michael.d.schneider55.civ@army.mil).

Material questions and answers will be published and updated on the

Government Point of Entry (GPE): www.sam.gov.

3.2 Funding

Funding is not currently available for the AoI. Any award made pursuant to this

CSO is expressly contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds. The Government reserves the right to incrementally fund any resultant agreement.

3.3 Costs Associated with Proposal Preparation

No costs associated with the preparation, submission, or presentation of materials in response to this CSO will be reimbursed, nor shall such costs be allowable under any resulting agreement.

3.4 Declared Areas for Innovation and Flexibility

To facilitate bold and innovative solutions, the Army is proactively seeking to provide maximum flexibility by reviewing and potentially waiving traditional constraints.

Participants are strongly encouraged to build their solutions around the assumption that these constraints can be alleviated. In your submissions, please quantify the operational, financial, and experiential benefits of your proposed solution should these flexibilities be granted.

Key areas where the Army is seeking to provide relief include:

• Sourcing: An exception from the mandatory use of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) as a primary food source to allow for greater supply chain efficiency and flexibility.

• Menu Standards: Relief from rigid menu and nutritional requirements (e.g., Soldier Feeding Initiative (SFI) to allow for more creative, palatable, and healthy menu offerings based on commercial best practices.

• Facilities & Equipment: A willingness to explore models where the contractor has greater control over facility maintenance, repairs, and equipment installation, potentially on a reimbursable basis, to avoid delays associated with traditional processes.

mailto:Jeffery.d.harris.civ@army.mil mailto:Michael.d.schneider55.civ@army.mil http://www.sam.gov/ https://www.google.com/search?q=Soldier+&hl=en&sca_esv=e4930b54a8b6c4ed&ei=X59qabWcIcHn2roP9Lep-AU&oq=what+regulation+cosoldier+feeding+initiative+program&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiNHdoYXQgcmVndWxhdGlvbiBjb3NvbGRpZXIgZmVlZGluZyBpbml0aWF0aXZlIHByb2dyYW0qAggBMgoQIRigARjDBBgKMgoQIRigARjDBBgKSIyFAVCdB1iyUXABeAGQAQGYAZIDoAGgLKoBCTIuMy43LjkuMbgBAcgBAPgBAZgCDKACyBLCAgoQABiwAxjWBBhHwgIFECEYoAHCAgUQIRifBcICBRAhGKsCwgIIEAAYgAQYogTCAggQABiiBBiJBcICBRAAGO8FmAMAiAYBkAYIkgcHMS41LjMuM6AHsW6yBwcwLjUuMy4zuAe_EsIHCDAuMS4xMC4xyAc2gAgA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp&ved=2ahUKEwiC3e-L85CSAxUdp1YBHTwPAeYQgK4QegQIARAB

• Legacy Systems & Regulations: Openness to solutions that do not rely on legacy systems like the Army Food Management Information System (AFMIS) or manual processes outlined in regulations like AR 30-22, provided a more efficient and secure alternative is proposed.

4.0 Collaboration and Teaming Opportunities

The Government recognizes that innovative solutions may come from different sources and that no single vendor may possess all the capabilities required to fully address the AoI. Accordingly, the Government may encourage collaboration between participants whose proposed approaches are complementary.

• Facilitated Matchmaking: Based on review of solution briefs, site visit participation, or pitch sessions, the Government may identify opportunities where combining elements of two or more proposals could yield a stronger, more comprehensive solution. In such cases, the Government may invite participants to explore teaming arrangements, subcontracting, or joint proposals.

• Participant Discretion: Any decision to collaborate, subcontract, or form a team is at the sole discretion of the participants. The Government will not direct partnerships but will highlight where it sees potential synergy.

5.0 CSO Phased Approach

The CSO process for Enhanced Food Service Operations at T2COM garrisons will be conducted in three iterative phases, designed to move from broad solution concepts to fully developed proposals informed by real-world operational context:

5.1 Phase 1 – Solution Brief

Overview: Participants shall submit concise Solution Briefs that address the AoI.

Submissions should demonstrate how the proposed solution introduces innovative procedures, practices, or methods not currently employed by the Army, or how modifications to existing practices could deliver measurable financial savings, increased efficiency, or operational improvements.

Purpose: To identify viable, innovative concepts that align with the stated AoI and warrant further consideration.

Format / Schedule: Solution Briefs shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions in Section 7.0 of this CSO. Phase 1 submissions are due no later than 12:00 PM (CST) on February 20, 2026, and must be provided to the Points of Contact identified in Section 3.1.

5.2 Phase 2 – Site Visit / Pitch Session

Overview: Companies whose Solution Briefs are evaluated as meritorious may be invited to a site visit. The visit provides direct exposure to facility layout, staffing practices, supply chain operations, and meal service execution. This engagement is intended to help participants refine, adapt, and validate their proposed solutions so that final proposals balance innovation with operational practicality.

Purpose: To inform and strengthen proposal development by grounding concepts in real-world Army food service operations.

During the site visit, participants can expect:

• A guided walkthrough of food service facilities, including preparation, serving, and dining areas.

• Discussions with Army staff on staffing, scheduling, and service delivery practices.

• Overviews of supply chain and inventory management processes.

• Opportunities for Q&A to clarify operational requirements and constraints.

Format / Schedule: The site visit is not an evaluation event, but a collaborative working session designed to enhance participants’ understanding of the operational environment. If a site visit is offered, participation is mandatory for further consideration for a Prototype OTA award. Ground rules and logistics for site visits are provided in Section 8.1 of this CSO. The Government intends to notify participants selected for a site visit session within 20 days of the initial Solution Brief.

Following the site visit, companies will be invited to present their concept in a live pitch session, conducted in person. The purpose of the pitch is to highlight the distinctiveness, feasibility, and expected impact of the proposed solution, followed by a Q&A session with the Government evaluation panel. The Government may request or provide additional information, as necessary, to clarify the solution’s applicability.

Purpose: The pitch enables the Government to assess the clarity, practicality, and alignment of the proposed solution with Army needs, while providing participants the opportunity to refine and articulate their concept through direct dialogue.

Format / Schedule:

• Pitch sessions will be conducted in accordance with the instructions provided in Section 8.2 of this CSO.

• The Government reserves the right to invite any, all, or none of the participants to proceed to this phase.

• A solution brief may be evaluated as meritorious but not be invited to the site visit / pitch phase.

• The Government will not reimburse costs associated with pitch sessions unless otherwise stipulated.

5.3 Phase 3 – Written Proposal and Prototype Selection

Overview: Companies whose Solution Briefs and Pitches are evaluated as meritorious and who are selected for further consideration may, be invited to submit a full written proposal for a Prototype OTA. The Agreements Officer will issue invitations to specific vendors based on the results of Phases 1& 2.

Purpose: Down-select to the most promising prototype(s) for execution and validation.

Format / Schedule:

• Written proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions provided in Section 9.0 of this CSO.

• If invited, participants will be given a specific due date, generally within 30 days of the invitation issued by the Agreements Officer.

• During its review, the Government may ask questions, seek clarifications, or request revisions at any time. These interactions will not follow a structured format and may vary by vendor.

• The Government will not reimburse companies for costs associated with the Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP), including proposal development or negotiations, unless otherwise stipulated.

• While the Government’s intent is to select a single prototype, it has the right to select more than one prototype from different participants (if determined to be in the Government’s best interest, and / or it has the right to make no selection).

6.0 Evaluation Process

Proposals submitted under this CSO will not be evaluated using formal point scores or adjectival ratings. Instead, submissions will undergo a qualitative peer review by a Government evaluation panel. Findings will be documented in a streamlined manner, with emphasis on overall merit, feasibility, and alignment with Army needs.

The Government intends to employ an iterative and collaborative evaluation process. This may include dialogue with participants to clarify submissions, refine proposed approaches, and negotiate technical, business, and pricing terms. To support this process, the Government may provide participants with a notional budget or target funding range to guide proposal development and promote efficient negotiations. Any budget guidance will be offered solely for planning purposes and does not represent a commitment or guarantee of funding.

These interactions are intended to promote mutual understanding and improve the quality of potential solutions and may occur at multiple points during the evaluation.

The outcome of this process will be the Government’s determination of whether it is in its interest to proceed with an award. In making this determination, the Government reserves broad discretion in how it weighs evaluation factors, with price and affordability considered alongside technical merit.

7.0 Phase 1 Solution Brief Instructions

7.1 Content

Solution Briefs should not exceed ten (10) written pages using 12-point font or, alternatively, Solution Briefs may take the form briefing slides which should not exceed twenty (20). These limits are not required but are strongly recommended.

• Title Page (does not count against page limit)

• Company Name, Title, Date, Point of Contact Name, E-Mail Address, Phone, and Address.

• Executive Summary (recommend one-two pages): Each Solution Brief shall include a concise Executive Summary (maximum two pages) that:

States the problem or gap in Army food service operations being addressed.

Summarizes the proposed solution (new procedure, modification, or enabling technology).

Highlights the anticipated benefits (e.g., cost savings, efficiency, readiness).

Explains why the Army should consider this solution.

The Executive Summary should be written for senior reviewers as a clear, stand-alone overview, enabling a quick understanding of the concept before reviewing the full Solution Brief.

• Solution Concept: Show and/or describe how your proposed solution or potential new capabilities represent the introduction of innovative procedures, practices, or methods not currently used by the Army in support of food service operations, and/or modifications to existing practices that deliver measurable financial savings or operational improvements. Solutions may address efficiencies in staffing, scheduling, menu management, maintenance, supply chain integration, training, or service delivery models.

While technology enhancements may be part of the proposal, they should serve as enablers to procedural or operational improvements rather than the central focus. Describe how your approach differs from current Army practices, and how it addresses the AoI.

If applicable, identify whether your solution involves a pilot or demonstration of proven commercial practices, an adaptation of industry best practices for defense application, or the development of a new approach tailored to Army needs.

Clearly define the path to validate and scale your concept across the T2COM environment.

When describing your solution, it is encouraged to use an 'if-then' format to articulate the value of removing constraints. For example: 'If the mandatory DLA sourcing requirement is waived, then we can leverage our commercial supply chain to reduce food costs by X% and increase fresh food variety by Y%.' This approach will help the Army understand and justify the internal changes required to enable your innovation.

Identify any proprietary aspects of your proposal, including data, methodologies, or software.

Identify if the following is applicable: 1) your proposal includes at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project (if so, please identify what contribution that entity will provide to overall effort and how you view it as significant); 2) only small businesses (including small businesses participating in a program described under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638)) or nontraditional defense contractors will be significant participants in your proposal;

and/or 3) your proposal involves at least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than the Federal Government. For purposes of the above, the term "nontraditional defense contractor” means an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the Department of Defense for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section.

7.2 Basis of Evaluation:

• Relevance to the AoI: The degree to which the solution directly addresses the AoI of Enhanced Food Service Operations for T2COM garrisons.

• Innovation and Differentiation: The extent to which the approach is novel, underutilized, or adapted from proven commercial practices in a way that advances Army food service operations.

• Feasibility and Scalability: The technical and operational merit of the proposed solution, including its practicality of implementation, ability to withstand the Army’s operational demands, and scalability across T2COM locations.

• Path to Validation and Impact: The clarity of the proposed path to test, validate, and measure the solution in the Army environment.

• The degree to which an offeror's solution brief does or does not permit the

Government to competitively procure such support in the future from third parties.

8.0 Phase 2 Site Visit & Pitch Instructions

8.1 Site Visit Instructions

Participants advancing beyond the solution brief may be invited to participate in a site visit at one or more Army food service locations. The purpose of the site visit is collaborative and iterative, intended to help participants refine their proposed solutions by experiencing the operational environment firsthand.

The site visit will:

• Provide insight into facility layout, workflow, staffing patterns, supply chain integration, and meal service operations.

• Allow participants to observe real-world conditions that may influence their solution design.

• Serve as a forum for clarifying Government expectations and addressing practical considerations before final proposal submission.

• Participants should view the site visit as an opportunity to adapt, strengthen, and validate their approach, ensuring that their pitches and, if applicable, final proposals reflect both the innovation sought under this CSO and the practical realities of Army food service operations.

Important Notes:

• Non-Evaluative: The site visit will not be used as a formal evaluation criterion.

• Collaborative Purpose: Participation is intended to improve the quality and realism of final proposals, not to rank or eliminate participants.

• Proposal Development: Participants are encouraged to incorporate insights from the site visit into their pitches and final submissions, showing how their solution accounts for operational realities.

8.2 Pitch Instructions

Companies invited to attend a site visit must provide a pitch to demonstrate and provide further details on the technical and business viability of their proposed solution.

In addition to the pitch, the Government, at its discretion, may request an additional written submission to supplement/clarify the information provided in the Phase 1 solution brief.

During the pitch, the company must detail/address the following:

• Executive Overview (5 minutes): Summarize the proposed solution and its relevance to the AoI of Enhanced Food Service Operations for T2COM garrisons. Clearly articulate the operational or financial problem it addresses.

• Concept and Differentiation (10 minutes): Describe the innovative procedures, practices, or methods being proposed and how they differ from current Army food service operations. Explain whether the solution adapts proven commercial practices, introduces a new approach, or modifies existing Army practices.

• Implementation Approach (10 minutes): Outline the prototype plan (timeline, key milestones, success measures). Describe how the solution could be validated, scaled, and sustained across multiple T2COM locations. Include a

Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) price for how this solution may be prototyped.

• Expected Benefits (5 minutes): Provide quantifiable financial or operational benefits, such as cost savings, improved service quality, reduced staffing burdens, or enhanced resilience.

• Q&A with Government Panel (30-45 minutes): Address questions related to feasibility, risks, scalability, and alignment with Army requirements.

• Identify if either of the following is applicable: 1) your proposal includes at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project (if so, please identify what contribution that entity will provide to overall effort and how you view it as significant); 2) only small businesses (including small businesses participating in a program described under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638)) or nontraditional defense contractors will be significant participants in your proposal; and/or 3) your proposal involves at least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than the Federal Government. For purposes of the above, the term "nontraditional defense contractor” means an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the Department of Defense for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section.

8.3 Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate pitches on how well the participant conveys the value and practicality of its proposed solution. Evaluation will focus on the following areas:

• Clarity of Concept: How clearly and convincingly the solution is presented, including its alignment with the AoI for Enhanced Food Service Operations at T2COM garrisons.

• Innovation and Distinction: The degree to which the approach represents a new or significantly improved way of managing food service operations, whether through procedures, practices, or enabling technologies.

• Practical Feasibility: Confidence that the solution can be implemented, tested, and scaled within the Army’s operational environment. The ROM price appears reasonable.

• Expected Benefits: The strength of the case made for measurable financial savings, operational efficiencies, or service improvements.

• Engagement and Responsiveness: The participant’s ability to address

Government questions directly, demonstrate understanding of Army needs, and adapt explanations as needed.

• The degree to which an offeror's pitch does or does not permit the

Government to competitively procure such support in the future from third parties.

9.0 Phase 3 Written Proposal Instructions

The final phase of the CSO process is the written proposal. The Government may issue a participant or participants a RPP seeking a final comprehensive solution.

Upon notification of an RPP by the Agreements Officer, participants will have approximately 30 calendar days to prepare and submit in accordance with the instructions below. Page limitations and formatting standards will be established at the time the RPP is issued.

Participants may propose their own internal terms and conditions to be considered during negotiations with the Government. Participants should note that there are certain terms and conditions the Government is unable to accept. However, projects awarded through the CSO are flexible to adopt customary industry standards where it is otherwise legal and where it meets the Government’s needs.

Participants may refer to previous submitted information from Phase I and II, but do not duplicate it.

9.1 Content:

The proposal submission shall conform to the following:

1. Cover Sheet:

a. CSO Number and AOI Name

b. Full company name and address

c. CAGE code

d. Unique Entity ID number

e. Business Size Classification (large, small, or other)

f. Participant’s socioeconomic status

g. Point of contact, name, title, phone number, and email address

h. Identify if either of the following is applicable: 1) your proposal includes at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project (if so, please identify what contribution that entity will provide to overall effort and how you view it as significant); 2) only small businesses (including small businesses participating in a program described under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638)) or nontraditional defense contractors will be significant participants in your proposal; and/or 3) your proposal involves at least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than the Federal Government. For purposes of the above, the term "nontraditional defense contractor” means an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the Department of Defense for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section.

2. Technical Approach:

a. The technical volume must include a detailed work plan that is execution focused, indicating how each aspect of the objectives outlined in the AoI is to be accomplished.

i. The participant shall describe the core concept of its solution, focusing on innovative procedures, practices, or methods not currently used by the Army. Explain how the solution modifies or improves existing food service operations to achieve measurable financial savings, increased efficiency, or improved service outcomes. If technology is included, describe how it enables procedural or operational improvements rather than serving as the primary focus.

ii. The participant shall show how the proposed solution would be applied within the Army food service environment.

Identify specific functions (e.g., staffing, scheduling, menu management, maintenance, supply chain integration, training, or service delivery models) that the approach addresses. Highlight the expected impact on performance, cost, and/or soldier experience.

iii. The participant shall describe the steps required to implement the solution, including any pilot or demonstration efforts. Provide a graphic display of major program milestones. Measurable milestones should capture key activity points and should be clearly articulated and defined in time relative to the start of the effort. Identify dependencies, assumptions, or critical enablers (e.g., facilities access, supply chain requirements, workforce considerations). Explain how the solution can be scaled across multiple T2COM locations once validated.

iv. The participant shall identify potential risks to implementation (operational, technical, organizational, or regulatory).

Propose mitigation strategies to ensure continuity of service and minimize disruption to food operations.

v. The participant shall define the measurable outcomes that will demonstrate success (e.g., cost savings, increased meal throughput, reduced waste, improved customer satisfaction, compliance with nutrition standards).

vi. If the solution incorporates proven commercial practices or adaptations of industry models, the participant shall describe how and where they have been successfully applied elsewhere. Provide evidence (case studies, benchmarks, data) that supports the feasibility and impact of the approach.

b. The technical approach should be in as much detail as the participant considers necessary to fully explain its proposed strategy, including all assumptions utilized to develop its proposed solution and associated costs. The technical approach should reflect a clear understanding of the nature of the work being undertaken and include information on how the project will be organized, staffed, and managed. Include a list of suggested deliverables and deliverable dates.

c. Quantified Value Proposition: The participant is encouraged to provide a clear analysis of the benefits unlocked by the flexibilities outlined in Section 3.3. This should include specific, measurable outcomes (e.g., projected cost savings, percentage increase in customer satisfaction, reduction in food waste, improved meal throughput) tied to each constraint that is removed.

d. Government Support Required: Identify the type of support, if any, the participant requests of the Government in general, such as facilities, equipment, data, and information or materials.

3. Draft Statement of Work (SOW) / Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Requirement

As part of the proposal submission, participants shall provide a Draft Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS) that corresponds directly to their proposed technical approach. The SOW/PWS must be a separate and distinct document suitable for incorporation into the contract or agreement. Pages should be numbered, and the initial page should have a date (document date) shown under the title. DO NOT INCLUDE ANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION IN THE

SOW/PWS.

• The Draft SOW/PWS should describe the specific tasks, milestones, deliverables, and performance outcomes necessary to implement the proposed solution.

• The Draft SOW/PWS should be written in terms of outcomes and objectives rather than prescriptive Government requirements, emphasizing how the solution will be applied, validated, and scaled.

• Participants should ensure that their Draft SOW/PWS includes measurable success criteria aligned with the metrics described in their technical approach.

The Government will use the participant’s Draft SOW/PWS as the basis for negotiation and refinement of the final SOW/PWS. The Government retains full authority to edit, supplement, or restructure the Draft SOW/PWS to ensure compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, consistency across agreements, and enforceability of performance obligations.

4. Price

a. Price proposals should provide sufficient detail to enable the Government to conduct a substantive analysis of the proposed cost or price of the work.

b. To facilitate a clear understanding of the participant’s proposal, the following information shall be submitted as part of the Price Volume submission:

i. Labor Rates and Costs

• Propose all base labor rates consistent with applicable Wage Determinations, Collective Bargaining Agreements, and Executive Orders.

• Provide a breakdown of labor rates and costs by category.

• Furnish the basis for estimates, particularly for exempt labor categories, including supporting documentation (e.g., current employee rates, Bureau of Labor Statistics data, PayScale benchmarks).

ii. Materials

• Provide a consolidated summary of material quantities and prices.

• Identify each item, associated quantity, and unit price.

• Support pricing with vendor quotes, invoices, or other documentation.

iii. Other Direct Costs

• Identify and price other anticipated costs not otherwise captured above (e.g., supplies, vehicles and operations, rentals, subcontracts, equipment, travel, computers, training, uniforms, leasing).

• Provide supporting documentation such as vendor quotes or historical invoice data.

iv. Indirect Costs

• Describe the method used to calculate and apply indirect costs.

• Provide cost breakdowns, trends, or budgetary data that support the reasonableness of proposed rates.

• Identify the rates used and explain their basis.

c. Flexibility in Format: Participants may propose alternative formats or methodologies for presenting cost and pricing information, provided the submission clearly enables the Government to assess the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed solution.

9.2 Basis of Evaluation

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed solution:

• Addresses the AoI: Demonstrates clear relevance to Army food service operations and aligns with the objectives outlined in the CSO.

• Demonstrates Innovation and Impact: Introduces new or modified procedures, practices, or methods that show potential to improve efficiency, reduce costs, or enhance soldier experience.

• Shows Feasibility and Scalability: Provides a practical path for implementation, with reasonable milestones, awareness of risks, and potential for application across multiple Army locations.

The Government intends to evaluate price on the basis of reasonableness, affordability, and alignment with available funding. A solution that does not clearly articulate a pathway or framework that permits the Government to competitively procure future support from third parties may be considered to diminish the overall value of the approach.

10.0 Development Rights for the Prototype

The Government recognizes that proposed solutions may rely on contractor-developed processes, services, or commercial capabilities that pre-exist the prototype effort. Accordingly:

• Disclosure of Pre-Existing Rights: Participants shall clearly identify any processes, services, or commercial capabilities that are owned or controlled prior to the prototype award for which it will restrict the Government from competitively making use of to procure such support in the future from third parties.

• Negotiated Access: Rights to access, use, or integrate pre-existing processes, services, or capabilities will be negotiated prior to award of the prototype. The scope of Government access will be tailored to the needs of the prototype project and documented in the resulting agreement.

• Development During the Prototype: For any processes, services, or capabilities enhanced, adapted, or newly created under the prototype, the Government anticipates negotiating appropriate rights which will allow the Government to release or disclose such process, service, or capability outside the Government and authorize persons to whom release or disclosure has been made to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose such process, service, or capability for United States Government purposes as that term is defined by DFARS 252.227-7013(a).

• Protection of Proprietary Information: Contractors are responsible for clearly marking any pre-existing or proprietary elements asserted as restricted. Any unmarked data or deliverables may be treated as delivered with unlimited rights.

• Follow-On Production and Sustainment: Access to, or rights in, pre-existing and newly developed processes, services, or capabilities required for follow-on production, sustainment, or competition will be determined during negotiations and explicitly stated in the agreement.

11.0 Terms and Conditions Development

• Tailored Terms: This OTA will be executed using tailored terms and conditions appropriate for a prototype agreement under 10 U.S.C. 4022.

Terms will be developed in negotiation with the selected participant(s) and may deviate from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) except as required by statute.

• Key Provisions: At a minimum, terms and conditions will address:

1. Scope of work and deliverables, including measurable success criteria.

2. Payment Structure: The agreement will utilize a milestone-based payment schedule tied to the achievement of defined performance metrics and success criteria for the prototype. This moves away from traditional monthly invoicing.

3. IP rights, as negotiated.

4. Termination rights for convenience and default.

5. Compliance with applicable statutes and regulations (e.g., fiscal law, security, ethics).

• Final Agreement: The Agreements Officer retains authority to finalize, supplement, or modify proposed terms and conditions to ensure enforceability, compliance, and alignment with Government interests.

12.0 Award

Award of an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) will be made at the sole discretion of the Government. While a single prototype is anticipated, awards may be made to one, multiple, or no participants under this CSO. Selection for award will be based on the overall merit of the proposed solution, the demonstrated potential to meet Army needs, and the availability of funds.

Only an Agreements Officer has the authority to enter into or modify a binding agreement on behalf of the Government. Any participant selected for award of a prototype must be determined responsible by the Agreements Officer and must not be suspended, debarred, or otherwise prohibited from receiving an award under Federal law, Presidential Executive Order, or other applicable authority.

13.0 Iterative Prototyping

Prototype OTA(s) awarded under this CSO will support an iterative prototyping process tailored to Army food service operations. This process allows the Government and awardee(s), by mutual agreement, to adapt, refine, or expand the scope of a prototype effort as lessons are learned during execution.

The intent is to ensure proposed solutions can be tested, adjusted, and scaled in real-world Army dining environments, with flexibility to incorporate feedback from site visits, operational users, and Government stakeholders. Iterative prototyping may include modifying staffing models, supply chain integration methods, training approaches, service delivery processes, or enabling technologies to better align with Army mission needs.

This approach also enables the Government to extend or modify prototypes to address additional operational requirements or unique mission sets that may arise within the Army or across the broader Department of Defense food service enterprise.

14.0 Follow-On Production

Any food service concept, practice, or solution successfully demonstrated and validated through a Prototype OTA may transition into follow-on production, enabling the Army to scale proven innovations across additional dining facilities, garrisons, or mission environments. The Government and the Company may, by mutual agreement, negotiate a follow-on production contract or agreement without further competition, as authorized under 10 U.S.C. § 4022(f).

15.0 OTA Terms and Conditions

Comptroller General Access to Records

(a) Statutory Requirement. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 4022(c), if the total payments under this Agreement exceed $5,000,000, the Comptroller General of the United States, at the Comptroller General’s discretion, shall have the right to examine the records of any party to this Agreement or any entity that participates in the performance of this Agreement.

(b) Scope of Records. For purposes of this clause, “records” includes books, documents, papers, and other records, regardless of form, that directly pertain to, and involve transactions relating to, this Agreement.

(c) Exclusions. The right of access does not extend to:

1. Records not directly related to this Agreement;

2. Internal cost or pricing data not required to be provided under this Agreement;

3. Trade secrets, privileged, or confidential commercial or financial information not directly relevant to performance under this Agreement; or

4. Records created after final payment, except as necessary to verify compliance with the terms of this Agreement.

(d) Duration. The right of access under this clause shall be available for a period of three (3) years after final payment under this Agreement.

(e) Flow-Down. The recipient shall flow down the substance of this clause to any subrecipients or subcontractors whose work is funded in whole or in part under this Agreement, if the total payments under this Agreement exceed $5,000,000.

Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions

(a) Offers/solution briefs/pitches submitted in response to this solicitation shall identify, to the extent known at the time it is submitted to the Government, the processes, services, or commercial capabilities the Offeror, its subcontractors or suppliers, or potential subcontractors or suppliers, assert should be furnished to the Government with restrictions on use, release, or disclosure.

(b) The Offeror’s assertions, including the assertions of its subcontractors or suppliers or potential subcontractors or suppliers, shall be submitted as an attachment to its offer in the following format, dated and signed by an official authorized to contractually obligate the Offeror. It shall identify the process, service, and/or capability for which it is restricting the Government’s use, release, or disclosure; identify the basis for such asserted restriction; and list what it proposes for a restriction on such use, release, or disclosure. Offerors shall enter “none” when there is no process, service, capability, or anything else in its offer/solution brief/pitch that is being submitted with restrictions on use, release, or disclosure (and then date and sign by an official authorized to contractually obligate the Offeror).

(c) An Offeror's failure to submit, complete, or sign the notification and identification required under paragraph (b) of this provision may render the offer ineligible for award.

Upon request by the Contracting Officer, the Offeror shall provide sufficient information to enable the Contracting Officer to evaluate any listed assertion.

(d) If the Offeror is awarded a contract, the assertions identified under paragraph (b) of this provision shall be listed in an attachment to that contract.

Area of Interest:

Enhanced Food Service Operations for T2COM Garrisons

Title

Modernize U.S. Army Transformation and Training Command (T2COM)

Background T2COM trains, educates, develops and builds the Army; establishes standards; drives improvement; and leads changes to ensure the Army can deter, fight, and win on any battlefield now and into the future. T2COM incorporates over 70 functional dining facilities that are distributed across 13 installations. T2COM averages over 55 million meals per year utilizing a straight-line feeding layout designed to rapidly flow trainees through the facility. Many of these buildings have been built or renovated within the last 20 years and are continued to be evaluated for service. The need to train and sustain Soldiers is a constant business and the dining facilities provide the necessary dietary and nutritional requirements to support them. This is accomplished by operating seven days a week with three to four meals per day. Based on constant usage to meet the mission, maintenance and equipment replacement is a constant challenge.

Problem Description The Army recognizes the need to modernize their feeding concept. The new millennium Soldier identifies with a more open, inviting facility atmosphere and the Army realizes that moving toward a campus style feeding concept will provide the environment to increase Soldier morale and well-being. The Army traditionally operates in a disciplined and focused process to provide a more restrictive dining experience and the traditional contracts to support these operations were very detailed and under focused surveillance. The Army realizes that to modernize the feeding environment they will have to shift legacy contract and feeding operations and incorporate more campus style contracting processes that allow increased menu options and station style feeding concepts while still meeting the nutritional and dietary requirements to sustain Soldiers. The Army understands the need to improve dining options to support vegetarian, kosher, and halal meals for those select Soldiers with those requirements to ensure that personnel in a training setting maintain holistic health and fitness.

Goals The Army recognizes that solving this requires a new approach. The Army is therefore not seeking incremental improvements, but a fundamental shift. To achieve this, the Army is adopting a “whiteboard” approach, inviting our commercial partners to propose their ideal, end-to-end dining solutions, unconstrained by the legacy processes that have historically hindered innovation. Specifically, the Army is seeking relief from traditional barriers, including mandatory sourcing requirements, rigid menu standards, and legacy technology systems, to enable a truly modern dining experience for our Soldiers. This fundamental shift to T2COM dining facility feeding activities will replace the legacy system of contracts and feeding across the wide spectrum of Army installations with commercial practices.

Objectives

• Harness the expertise of commercial food service industry partners and introduce innovative dining solutions within the Army’s complex food service enterprise at multiple T2COM locations.

• Modernize dining facility services to provide station style feeding while effectively synchronizing with supported unit’s training schedules to accommodate high-volume, concentrated dining flow rates.

• Sustain industry and Army standards for cleanliness and sanitation within all areas of the dining facilities to ensure a safe and healthy environment.

• Pioneer a flexible partnership model that quantifies the value of removing legacy constraints. This initiative will validate the operational, financial, and experiential benefits achieved when commercial partners are empowered to deploy their proven, end-to-end solutions, free from traditional barriers in sourcing, menu design, facility management, and technology.