Evaluation Criteria OVER SAT.pdf

BASIS OF AWARD

Award shall be made to the offeror whose proposal is the Best Value-Tradeoff to the government. The government will evaluate information based on the following evaluation criteria (1) technical capability w/sub-factors (2) Past Performance (3) Price. The three criteria will be equally weighted in importance. The Government intends to award without discussions.

Factors-Each factor will be evaluated as best value to the government: Technical capability, Past Performance, and Price.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

There are FOUR subfactors in this evaluation. A rating will be given for each subfactor and the overall technical proposal. Each will be evaluated based on the criteria listed in Table 1 below.

Offerors must receive an overall rating no less than acceptable to be considered for award. The three subfactors are listed in order of importance. Offerors are cautioned that they must respond to all subfactors regardless of importance. Ratings follow the explanation of the technical rating process.

Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement of the solicitation has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the solicitation. To be considered effective, the approach will, as a minimum, demonstrate: understanding of the requirements of the RFP.

Subfactor 1 – Capability Statement Subfactor 2 – One Month Menu Subfactor 3 – Experience/Credentials Subfactor 4 – Government Property Management Plan

1. Capability Statement: Provide a capability statement that addresses effective and efficient management to accomplish the requirements in the PWS. The ability to accurately invoice with multiple simultaneous task orders separately (contractor may have multiple task orders or GPC purchases performing simultaneously) and manage/track meal change requests should be included. Address functions, responsibilities and authorities for performing such duties as overall project manager, contract employees, and administrative support staff.

Given the labor challenges of the area a plan for hiring and maintaining staff should be included. Information should include the required security and training of staff to include (but not all inclusive) ServSafe (para. 1.4.7), OPSEC (para 1.4.5.5), and AT (para 1.4.5.2).

2. One Month Menu: Menu shall meet all requirements of the PWS regarding nutrition, caloric values, and variety. Menu items, including a salad bar, shall consist of high quality and healthy sustenance. Meals shall provide for variance to avoid the appearance or assumption of “leftovers”. A special meal shall be included in addition to the one-month menu. The menu shall address healthier meal choices, various options, and meet various caloric requirements of customers. Meals that are prepared fresh (made from scratch), avoid pre-packaged, or pre-cooked meal items will be evaluated more favorably.

3. Experience/Credentials: Provide resumes and credentials related to the requirements of the PWS. Provide evidence of certifications. Certification documentation (such as ServSafe) shall show individual/Company identification/and date certified.

4. Property Management Plan: Per AFARS PGI 5145.201(d) a Property Management Plan (PMP) must be approved prior to contract performance. Quotes shall include a draft PMP as part of their submission/quote. The PMP shall be tailored to the complexity, sensitivity, and value of the property proposed. At a minimum the PMP should include

Receipt: How the property will be received and recorded Reporting: How the property will be reported on Utilization: How the property will be used Inventory: How the property will be physically inventoried Maintenance: How the property will be maintained Closeout: How the property will be closed out

Evaluation Criteria: technical ratings will be evaluated using the following criteria:

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very high.

PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance- Vendors with successful past performance in a similar requirement will be rated more favorable. References should be provided to provide independent analysis of contract performance. References should include pertinent contract information (dollar amount, location, agency/organization performed for, scope of work, prime/subcontractor on the project, current contact information of POC). Quoter is responsible to ensure that contact information (email/phone) are current and accurate. All experience provided should be in the last 3 years to be considered recent, experience that dates past 5 years may not be considered. Contractors shall provide no more than three (3) pages detailing their experience. The vendor shall show how their experience relates to PWS. Note, this is regarding the contractors themselves NOT the employees who will be working on contract if for services.

Past performance information may be obtained from established systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and/or Fee Determining Officials.

Evaluation Criteria: Past Performance will be evaluated using the following criteria:

TABLE 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

TABLE 3 – Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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.

Unknown Confidence (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.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown confidence (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

PRICE

All pricing must be provided for; this requirement will not be split. All vendors shall use the attached pricing table for quotes.

Prices will be determined fair and reasonable IAW FAR 13.106-3(a). Pricing that is determined unrealistically low may be removed from contract award consideration and determined unacceptable.

Price per contract year

1st year of award

2nd year of award

3rd year of award

4th year of award

5th year of award

6-month extension (if used)

Breakfast ≤10 per meal service 11-30 per meal service 31-60 per meal service ≥61 per meal service

Lunch ≤10 per meal service 11-30 per meal service 31-60 per meal service

≥61 per meal service Dinner

≤10 per meal service 11-30 per meal service 31-60 per meal service ≥61 per meal service

Special Meals para. 5.3.2.8.2

≤10 per meal service 11-30 per meal service 31-60 per meal service ≥61 per meal service

Sack Lunches ≤10 per meal service 11-30 per meal service 31-60 per meal service ≥61 per meal service

Warming/Cooling Beverages

Delivery Fee to Helena Aviation Readiness Center-Round trip cost per delivery Delivery Fee to Limestone Hills-Round trip cost per delivery

**Pricing shall include as a percentage the cost per meal for labor. This percentage will be included in price evaluation and may be used for price adjustments due to Fair Labor Standards Act wage increases.

**In determining the price per meal charged, the price will be the aggregate of all task orders, GPC purchases, external contracts awarded at the time of the meal service.