F41999-25-Q-0041 Request for Quote.pdf

Instructions to Contractors-Food 2.0 3rd Party Regionalization & Sustainment

RFQ #F41999-25-Q-0041

Food 2.0 3rd Party Regionalization & Sustainment

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO CONTRACTORS

The Air Force Services Center (AFSVC), Food & Beverage Division (VMF), manages the Air Force-wide Food & Beverage (F&B) operations. The instructions contained herein are for Food 2.0 3rd Party Regionalization & Sustainment, Request for Quote (RFQ) F41999-25-Q-0041. Contractors are required to meet ALL solicitation requirements.

1. SUBMISSION OF QUOTES

1.1. Marketing and Informational material will NOT be evaluated. Failure to submit any of the documents outlined below may be cause for rejection of the quote submission.

1.2. Contractors are expected to examine the Statement of Objectives (SOO), attachments and all instructions. Failure to do so will be at the Contractor's risk.

1.3. RFQ submission documents must be in Adobe PDF format, and/or Microsoft Excel.

1.3.1. Only electronic copies of quotes will be accepted via DoD SAFE. Contractors must ensure electronic copies are virus free.

1.3.2. Submit Contract Documentation, Pricing, Past Performance Information & Technical Information, and label as follows:

a. Volume I (Contract Documentation). Submit one (1) electronic copy of the Nonappropriated Fund Request for Quotations Form signed by an authorized person, certified NAF Standard Clauses, signed Representation & Certification form, any contractor contract terms & conditions, assumptions, any other documents providing organization structure, current customers related to this requirement, etc.

b. Volume II (Pricing). Submit one (1) electronic copy of the Contractor’s Services and Prices/Costs. NAFI prefers the pricing to be broken out by deliverables; however, if the contractor feels a different break out is more beneficial to the NAFI, feel free to do so. Please provide an explanation on why pricing is done differently than requested. All spreadsheets should be without calculation errors. See the attached “Evaluation Factors” for any additional instructions. If any goods/services are offered “free of charge” and /or cost savings to the Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality (NAFI), Contractor must clearly identify the cost savings to include the dollar value of services along with short narrative explaining the said savings to the NAFI. Travel will be paid in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations. See paragraph 29 of the NAF Standard Clauses for Travel Clause.

c. Volume III (Past Performance Information (PPI))The Contractor must provide PPI narratives on at least two (2) recent and relevant projects of similar magnitude and scope of this RFQ requirement performed within the last five (5) years. The NAFI will not consider performance that occurred more than five (5) years prior to the date of this solicitation.

Page limit for the narrative must not exceed six (6) pages per reference. The narrative must include: 1) Customer contact information (i.e. Name, Email, Phone Number, and Mailing Address); 2) A description of the scope of the services provided to the customer i.e. the problem statement; 3) A description on how the Contractor provided innovative, unmatched industry and functional expertise, to successfully perform the contract requirements and deliver tangible outcomes 4) Cost saving initiatives initiated during performance period of the contract; 5) Timeliness and challenges associated with delivering the required outcome and lessons learned; and 6) Solutions or adjustments made in response to the challenges.

The Contractor must explain what aspects of the projects are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and describe the rationale supporting the assertion of relevance of the submitted requirement to this acquisition. Contractor must clearly link the past performance to the aspects of the Contractor’s proposed efforts.

The Contractor must include information regarding efforts accomplished to resolve problems encountered on these projects as well as past efforts to identify and manage requirement risk. The Contractor is required to demonstrate clear management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. For example, submission of quality performance indicators or other management indicators could show how the Contractor has overcome problems. Submission of this information may allow the Contractor to earn a higher confidence rating.

The Contractor must identify if a subcontractor was utilized to complete any part of the past efforts identified in the enclosed PPI and to what extent.

d. Volume IV (Contractor’s Statement of Work (CSOW)).

The Contractor’s CSOW must be clear and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. It must outline Contractor’s complete understanding of the requirement and how (convincing rationale) the contractor will fulfill all deliverables/technical requirements in the SOO. These instructions are intended to elicit brief and specific responses;

however, simply stating the requirements are understood and it is the intent to comply with this effort or paraphrasing statements from the SOO is inadequate.

The Contractor MUST NOT assume the evaluator has prior knowledge of their experience, business practices, etc. The evaluation will be based on the information presented in the Contractor’s RFQ submission. NO CROSS- REFERENCING ALLOWED. The CSOW will be incorporated into the award.

1.4. If Contractor wishes to modify or withdrawn their quote, it must be done in writing and received at any time BEFORE closure of this solicitation. The Contractor must send written notice by email ONLY to james.boykin.2@us.af.mil and valerie.baltimore@us.af.mil along with the resubmission, if applicable, of their entire quote, even if the modification only affected one section of the quote. Written acknowledgement of receipt must be obtained by James Boykin and Valerie Baltimore the assigned Contracting Officer.

1.5. If Contractor wishes to withdraw their quote, it must be done in writing and received at any time BEFORE award of the contract. Contractor must send written notice by email ONLY to james.boykin.2@us.af.mil and valerie.baltimore@us.af.mil. Written acknowledgement of receipt must be obtained by James Boykin and Valerie Baltimore the assigned Contracting Officer.

1.6. Any perspective Contractors desiring to ask questions or who need an explanation or clarification of the solicitation, drawings, specifications, etc., must submit questions in writing (by email) NO LATER THAN 2:00 PM, Central Standard Time, on Thursday, 13 March 2025, to allow a reply to reach all perspective Contractors prior to the submission of their quote.

Questions must be submitted via email to james.boykin.2@us.af.mil and valerie.baltimore@us.af.mil.

1.7. All questions received by the above date will have a response in writing NO LATER THAN 4:00 PM, Central Standard Time, on Monday, 17 March 2025.

1.8. For quote delivery, Contractor is required to send an email request to james.boykin.2@us.af.mil and valerie.baltimore@us.af.mil requesting permission to upload to safe.apps.mil. Once the request is received, Contractor will receive an email from DoD SAFE with a link to submit documentation. PLEASE DO NOT REQUEST ACCESS

BEFORE 7 DAYS OF THE CONTRACTOR’S SUBMISSION DATE NOT TO EXCEED

THE RFQ

CLOSE DATE. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to ensure they receive the DoD Safe link before the RFQ Closing date. If no email response by this office, please call 380-457-0630 or 380-456- 9205.

1.9. Delivery of all RFQ documents must be received by close of the solicitation, NO LATER THAN 4:00 PM, Central Standard Time, on Thursday, 10 April 2025.

1.10. In the “Short note to the Recipients” section of DoD SAFE, quotes must be marked as follows:

Solicitation Number / RFQ#: F41999-25-Q-XXXX Air Force Services Center (AFSVC) Food 2.0 3rd Party Regionalization

Closing Date/Time: Thursday, 10 April 2025/4:00pm CST

2. PAYMENT TERMS/SCHEDULE.

Air Force Services Center’s preferred method of payment is by Government Credit Card (Visa) within 30 days of receipt of proper invoice. Contractor shall invoice in equal monthly payments totaling 75% of the total contract price. The final 25% of the total contract price will be held in mailto:james.boykin.2@us.af.mil mailto:valerie.baltimore@us.af.mil mailto:james.boykin.2@us.af.mil mailto:valerie.baltimore@us.af.mil.

mailto:james.boykin.2@us.af.mil mailto:valerie.baltimore@us.af.mil.

mailto:james.boykin.2@us.af.mil mailto:valerie.baltimore@us.af.mil arrears and paid once all deliverables are received and accepted by the COR.

3. RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE AND USE OF DATA

3.1. Contractors who include in their pricing data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the NAFI except for evaluation purposes, shall:

3.1.1. Mark the title page with the following legend: "Quote includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the NAFI and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed -in whole or in part-for any purpose other than to evaluate this Quote. If, however, a contract is awarded to this Contractor because of or in connection with the submission of this data, the NAFI shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the NAFI's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction.

The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]"; and

3.1.2. Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:

“Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this Quote.”

[END DOCUMENT]

5 March 25 3rd Party Regionalization SOO 1 of 7

Part I: General Information

Statement of Objectives 3rd Party Food & Beverage

Regionalization & Sustainment

1. Introduction The Air Force Services Center (AFSVC), Food & Beverage (F&B) Division, manages Appropriated F&B operations across the Air Force (AF). AFSVC requires periodic updates to the existing Food 2.0 Operations Plan, allowing for customization from its current Portfolio’s to a Regional structure. This update will streamline the transition while helping address current concerns and challenges.

2. Background In 2008, the Department of the Air Force (DAF) initiated an innovative approach to revamp its F&B operations known as the Food Transformation Initiative (FTI). It was determined that the traditional methods of managing base-level F&B operations were inadequate in meeting the needs of Airmen and the base community while also lacking financial liability.

Consequently, the AF received funding through Air Force Smart Operations 21 (AFSO 21), a program for improvement initiatives mandated by AF Chief of Staff. This initiative allowed the AF to use best practices of the industry to enhance government work processes. Subsequently the AF embarked on testing FTI through large-scale, off-installation initiatives spanning multiple years. FTI was highly successful with fulfilling its key objectives as outlined below. Over the past decade the program has continually evolved and now operates under the name “Food 2.0”.

2.1. Original AFSO 21 business case key objectives:

2.1.1. Maintain & train military home base/war fighting feeding capabilities. Improve efficiency, reduce costs, and optimize service delivery.

2.1.2. Focus on changing lifestyles, needs, and preferences. Enhance food quality, variety, and availability.

2.1.3. Improve programs and facilities.

2.1.4. Provide modern, sought after, trendy, and nutritious meals. Restore a sense of community.

2.1.5. Partner where financially viable supporting socio-economically disadvantaged groups.

2.2 While Food 2.0 continues to be highly acceptable and desirable across the force, the basic program costs have rapidly grown and exceeded the cost of legacy/traditional run F&B operations. Fundamentally, the problem statement is whether this current model is sustainable or can and/or should it be modified to gain efficiencies which may optimize performance and delivery of program services. As this program has grown AFSVC has

5 March 25 3rd Party Regionalization SOO 2 of 7 brought on several more resources to support the enterprise approach. Today more than 50 dedicated staff resources provide centralized program management, technology, contracting, logistics and financial management to 42 locations across 28 installations.

Additionally, current global providers have brought in similar enterprise layers of leadership, supplementing the positions awarded at each installation.

3. Current Issues, Concerns and Challenges

3.1 Higher than normal industry food, labor, contractor costs, and accountability measures.

3.2 DAF has employed global contractors using portfolio concept with layers of management from each operation. This concept provides corporate enterprise for both contractor and military/government management teams. The absence of regional or industry-specific multi-unit strategies in this process leads to significant challenges in managing travel costs across various geographical locations. Consequently, questions arise regarding the effectiveness, optimization, and overall impact of this approach.

3.3 Remote management teams for both contractor and military/government using a variety of standardized systems (menus, recipes, Front-of-House (FOH) and Back-of- House (BOH), customer Food Service Assessment Survey (FSAS), Prime Vendor and enterprise equipment care (i.e., SmartCare) but appears to not be fully impactful in correcting program management concerns.

3.4 The Program relies on Contracting Officer Representatives (COR) and Program Contracting Officer Representatives (PCOR) at the corporate level, it lacks the essential documentation required to evaluate contractor performance on a daily, weekly, monthly, and annual basis. This documentation, which is commonly utilized in Business & Industry (B&I) sectors, is crucial for recognizing and rewarding positive performance.

3.5 Customers expressing displeasure of high food costs and outdated décor, that have lost their trendiness over time. These concerns have led the DAF to suspect that the current situation is not aligned with program objectives.

3.6 While operations adhere to standardized level of service each possesses its unique characteristics based on specific mission requirements which adds the complexity of managing as an enterprise.

4. Qualifications

4.1 AFSVC is seeking an independent assessment designed to enhance efficiencies and effectiveness of current Food 2.0 and Campus Dining System models from a professional hospitality firm that possesses a minimum of ten (10) years of experience in the F&B hospitality industry, including engagements in college, healthcare, and B&I sectors. These sectors encompass a range of arrangements, including independent, chain-owned, or concessionaire setups, each employing diverse acquisition and operational strategies.

4.2 A minimum of five (5) years of applied experience working with complex, multi-million-dollar government: contracts, transformative food initiatives, policies, procedures, acquisition strategies, source selection, price/cost analysis.

5 March 25 3rd Party Regionalization SOO 3 of 7

4.3 A minimum of five (5) years of experience assessing complex, multi-million program budgets and government funding sources for F&B programs using Nonappropriated Funds, and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

4.4 Have no financial interest in outcome of any award or possible award of any contract, directly or indirectly related to AFSVC Food 2.0 Program.

5. Scope of Services

5.1 Since inception and construction of the original business case, there has been limited independent 3rd party professional hospitality F&B review. The services requested and outlined below, would ensure what DAF developed and tested under FTI could continue to grow and sustain as Food 2.0 today. The services could involve but are not limited to:

5.1.1 Incorporating industry best practices from the F&B hospitality, healthcare, and B&I sectors, engaging with professionals, consultants, or researchers familiar with AFSO 21 methodologies as well as provide a more comprehensive understanding of its effects, challenges, and potential areas for improvement.

5.1.2 Critical to Food 2.0 is the need for continuous improvement. As such, measuring success and modifying goals and objectives to maintain cost efficiencies as outlined in current Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

5.1.3 Conduct a comprehensive, independent review of the Pilot Campus Dining program to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of the current dining services. The review will encompass the six (6) participating installations: Mt. Home Air Force Base (AFB), Hurlburt Field AFB, Peterson Space Force Base, Maxwell AFB, Misawa Air Base (AB), and Incirlik AB. This review will evaluate key areas, including operational processes, menu offerings, pricing structure, financial performance (revenue and cost management), and the program’s potential for self-sustainability. Key tasks and responsibilities will include but are not limited to:

5.1.3.1 Analyzing existing reports and financial data to gain a thorough understanding of the current program state.

5.1.3.2 Benchmarking against comparable programs and assessing alignment with industry standards and best practices.

5.1.3.3 Preparing a detailed report summarizing findings and providing actionable, evidence-based recommendations for improvement and long-term success.

5.1.3.3.1 If success is deemed unviable, develop a comprehensive executable plan to guide the closure of the Pilot Campus Dining program while minimizing significant impact on the broader Food 2.0 and/or Nonappropriated Funds (NAF) program.

5 March 25 3rd Party Regionalization SOO 4 of 7

5.1.4 Providing support with submitted proposals, evaluations, suggestions, and considerations regarding "business telemetry". These proposals shall undergo assessment and guidance on financial aspects related to food service, with a focus on identifying areas for potential contractual expense reduction. Additionally, recommendations are sought to improve the existing structure and adjust incentives for optimal performance, ensuring compliance with Government rules, policies, and procedures.

5.2 Additional Performance Specifications

The Contractor shall follow guidelines to ensure compliance with industry standards so that project objectives are achieved throughout the project lifecycle. Guidelines shall include methods, techniques, and formats consistent with industry food service best practice dashboards, metrics, templates from DAF and Project Management Institute for the following: Master SOW, Schedule of Services, Installation SOOs, Workbook/Staffing Guide Template, Evaluation Criteria (Technical & Financial), Proposal Requirements. All documents, recommendations, processes & procedures developed by the Contractor shall be compliant with government rules, policies, procedures, and applicable laws.

Part II: Work Requirements

6. Deliverables Deliverables encompass a review/assessment of current requirements. Results and recommendation should be presented as reports, analysis, standard operating procedures, etc. Contractor to suggest suitable format for delivering reports that effectively communicate the findings, insight, and recommendations. Contractor shall consider providing reports in multiple formats to accommodate different preferences and facilitate ease of use and sharing.

6.1 Develop, Modify, & Train

6.1.1 Contractor shall finalize inputs and edits to Food 2.0 core documents for a complete RFP package ready for issue according to AFNAFPO provided guidance.

6.1.2 Contractor shall modify the existing Foodservice Portfolio financial tool to enable future use as a forecasting and scenario analysis tool, bid evaluation tool and actual- to-budget contract oversight tool. Using metrics and a financial statement template previously developed. The financial tool is an Excel-based tool that requires redesign and modification to enable the tool to accomplish all intended objectives with detailed inputs and outputs consistent with the metrics and financial template providing monthly data by outlet, by base and by region as part of the final requirements package to the contracting team. Develop the evaluation criteria/factors, which include underlying assumptions to provide as part of the final requirement package to contracting team.

6.1.3 The Contractor shall provide ongoing support of additional modeling or analysis on an as needed basis. The Contractor shall be responsible for training Food 2.0 personnel in the use of the tool for continuing financial oversight of current and future installations/regions. At such time when personnel are conversant in the use and

5 March 25 3rd Party Regionalization SOO 5 of 7 application of the oversight tool, the Contractor shall thereafter be available on a time and materials basis to provide related advisory services as required. The Contractor shall also interface, as necessary, with the Food 2.0 team and its advisors during the financial tool development to ensure the tool meets the needs of the program. All tools, templates, reports, oversight guide(s), and other documentation developed and delivered are the property of the DAF.

6.2 Comprehensive review and assessment of current Food 2.0 documents (These documents will be provided at the time of contract award)

6.2.1 Statement of Work (SOW).

6.2.2 Statement of Objectives (SOO) for each current and transitioning Food 2.0 operations.

6.2.3 Contract structure fees, budget etc. (fixed vs. direct reimbursable).

6.2.4 General Accounting Office (GAO) reports and findings on FTI and Food 2.0.

6.2.5 Key performance indicators (KPI) and financial performance metrics.

6.2.6 Roles, responsibilities, and efforts of both contractor and military/government as it relates to SOW, SOO, and annual Installation Operating Plan (IOP).

6.2.7 Recipes, ingredients, and menu patterns, recommending efficiencies, error corrections to reduce food cost/waste etc.

6.2.8 Methods used by DAF to accurately measure costs per meal (Plate Cost).

6.2.9 AF methods used to measure non-food costs associated with contract, contractor fix and reimbursable expenses (input costs such as labor costs, reimbursable supplies, paper disposables, smallwares etc.).

6.2.10 Food Service Assessment Survey results (2012, 2014 & 2016, 2018, 2023).

6.3 Comprehensive review and operational assessment not to exceed10 locations varying in contractual set-ups. Observe and document operational similarities and differences.

Recommendations to be provided as a report:

6.3.1 Full Food Service contract – single DFAC.

6.3.2 Full Food Service contract – multiple DFACs operations.

6.3.3 Mess Attendant contract – single DFAC.

6.3.4. Mess Attendant contract – single DFACs and Satellite facility.

6.4 Strategic and tactical report provided by the contractor shall include findings, 5 March 25 3rd Party Regionalization SOO 6 of 7 recommendations for process improvement, financial efficiencies, contractor incentives, program management adjustments, etc. in areas such as financial compliance analysis, Contractor compliance, Master Planning (Portfolio vs Region), food cost & production, staff & crew size to operations, job task analysis (Mil vs Civ) and hourly rate comparison by Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), recipe adherence, equipment maintenance.

6.4.1 Provide assessment, recommendations and/or considerations for best & final negotiations.

6.4.2 Directly support the source selection team as advisors.

6.4.3 Travel as required to be in place at Port San Antonio and various installations, as a cost reimbursable, to complete reviews and/or assessments as directed.

(Installations TBD)

6.4.4 Cost containment (immediate, short- and long-term goals)

6.4.5 Review utilization of operations by analyzing the correlation between customer traffic and hours of operation.

Part III: Supporting Information

7. Task Timelines

7.1 Phase I (Program Plan of Action to Task) 0-30 Days

7.1.1 Contractor shall provide the following to begin three days from award date:

7.1.1.1 Schedule a virtual kick-off meeting to be conducted within 7 days of award for an in person, virtual or hybrid format. Any meetings to be held in person on site must be coordinated 7 days prior and approved by the Contracting Officer Representative (COR).

7.1.1.2 The Contractor shall provide to the COR an agenda two days prior to the agreed upon meeting date.

7.1.1.3 The Contractor shall provide meeting minutes to the COR within three days after the meeting including a summary of the discussions, agreed action items and deadlines.

7.1.1.4 The Contractor shall provide a detailed project and communication plan.

The Contractor is responsible for continuous updates to the project and communication plans.

7.2 Phase II (Current Data/Program Review, Site Visits/Data Gathering) 30-90 Days

7.2.1 The Contractor shall provide a report based on comprehensive review of all documents and identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement.

Provide recommended strategies to enhance data management practices, foster data-

5 March 25 3rd Party Regionalization SOO 7 of 7 driven decision-making, and drive business success.

7.3 Phase III (Tactical Roadmap to Strategic Objectives) 90-120 Days

7.3.1 The Contractor shall develop a high-level strategic goal and provide actionable plans and initiatives that drive progress and success. Provide a roadmap that navigates complexities of implementation and ensure the efforts are focused on achieving meaningful outcome that contribute to the overall success.

7.4 Phase IV (Development, Integration) 120-180 Days

The Contractor shall ensure there is an understanding of the SOW and create a detailed plan that outlines tasks, timelines, resources required and potential risk. The Contractor shall build the necessary components, features, reports, graphs, etc.

according to project overall timeline, and potential risks. Upon completion the newly developed components shall be integrated with existing process and procedures. The pilot testing phase for Food 2.0 operations shall include rigorous scenarios that help identify vulnerabilities and ensure the reliability of the integrated solution functions.

7.4.1 The Contractor shall provide a comprehensive list of all testing scenarios, clearly detailing the potential success or failure impacts on the overall project timeline. During this phase the Contractor will also deploy and evaluate various documentation to alignment with requirements and readiness for operations. Furthermore, the Contractor will facilitate a smooth transition from the development stage to active operations, ensuring the solution is fully functional and prepared for deployment. (Ref par. 6.3).

7.4.2 The Contractor shall include a range of activities aimed at monitoring and obtaining information related to specific targets and objectives. (Ref par. 2 & 3).

7.5 Phase V (Acquisition Assistance) 180-360 Days

7.5.1 The Contractor shall assist the government by providing support with Food 2.0 Regionalization: market research, solicitation documents and other required documents.

7.6 Phase VI (Post- Deployment Support Phase) Option Year (1 & 2)

7.6.1 This support will enable AFSVC to make informed decisions and effectively navigate the complexities of the sustainment process that will include performance monitoring reports, future recommendations and roadmaps. This phase will also allow for re-engagement, if necessary, to ensure continuity, which may necessitate the option of an additional year.

Food 2.0 3rd Party Regionalization & Sustainment

Evaluation Factors March 3, 2025

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BEST VALUE TRADE-OFF SELECTION

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The basis of award is Best Value Trade-Off, allowing for trade-offs among evaluation factors.

This approach enables the Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality (NAFI) to accept a Technical Solution that is not the lowest priced option. In making this decision, all evaluation factors, when combined, may justify awarding the contract to a vendor other than lowest priced option. The NAFI will award the contract to the responsive, and responsible vendor whose Technical Solution provides the best value, considering Technical, Past Performance and Price.

2. EVALUATION FACTOR(S)

The evaluations of each quote will be based on the following factors, listed in their relative order of importance. NOTE: If the NAFI determines the Contractor’s technical solution is rated marginal or below no further evaluation will be conducted.

2.1 TECHNICAL SOLUTION (Contractor’s Statement of Work)

The Contractor’s technical solution will be evaluated on how the Contractor intends to provide innovative and comprehensive services and solutions to address the deliverables identified in the Statement of Objectives (SOO), paragraphs 4-7. The Contractor must address, in chronological order, each paragraph and sub-paragraph in the SOO.

2.1.1 Combined Technical/Risk Rating:

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The NAFI will evaluate the quality of the contractor’s technical solution for meeting the NAFI’s requirement.

Outstanding (O)

Technical Solution indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable (A)

Technical Solution meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements and risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate to low.

Marginal (M)

Technical Solution has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable (U)

Technical Solution does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. The Technical Solution is unawardable.

F41999-25-Q-0041

Sustainment

Evaluation Factors March 3,2025

2.1.2 ORALPRESENTATIONS/INTERVIEWS:

As part of the Technical Evaluation, the NAFI may require an oral presentation or interview from any Contractor that is determined to have a technical rating of ACCEPTABLE OR HIGHER. The outcome of the oral presentation or interview may lead to an adjustment in the Contractor’s Technical Evaluation Rating. The Contractor will be provided at least three (3) days advance notice, including the presentation/interview requirements and questions.

3. PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance Evaluation will be conducted by reviewing the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) submitted by the Contractor’s references, along with the Past Performance Information (PPI) narratives provided. The NAFI will assess the quality of recent performance, with an emphasis on efforts that are relevant to the requirements outlined in the SOO. The NAFI will send the PPQs to the Contractor’s references. NOTE: For additional details, refer to the PPI attachment.

3.1 The NAFI reserves the right to use both data provided by the Contractor and information obtained from other sources to conduct this assessment. A Contractor’s past performance is deemed “Acceptable” if their performance record demonstrates a reasonable expectation of successfully completing the required effort. This determination is based on recent, relevant, and high-quality work performed within the past five (5) years, as evaluated through PPI narratives, NAFI sourced data, and submitted PPQ.

3.1.1. Relevancy Rating

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

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

Somewhat Relevant (SR)

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

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

3.2 Past Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA)

The PCA represents the degree of confidence the NAFI has in a contractor’s ability to deliver the required services, based on their past performance record. Each Contractor will receive an integrated PCA, which serves as the rating for the Past Performance Factor, determined using the evaluation criteria outlined in the Confidence Assessment Rating table below. While the evaluation emphasizes past performance relevant to the proposed Technical Solution, the resulting PCA is assessed at the factor level and represents the NAFI’s overall confidence in the Contractors ability to successfully fulfill requirements.

This assessment considers recent, relevant, and high-quality performance within the Food & Beverage industry.

Sustainment

Evaluation Factors March 3, 2025

3.2.1 Confidence Assessment Rating

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Contractor's recent/relevant performance record, there is a high expectation the Contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Contractor's recent/relevant performance record, there is a reasonable expectation the Contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Contractor's recent/relevant performance record, there is a low expectation the Contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the Contractor's recent/relevant performance record, there is no expectation the Contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

4. PRICE

The NAFI conducts price analysis to ensure that all proposed prices are realistic, fair and reasonable. Proposals with unreasonable prices are grounds for eliminating a Technical Solution from the competition unless the Contractor provides significant verification of price realism. This factor is analyzed but not rated. The base period will be one year from date of award. The unit price must be firm-fixed price for both the base period and the first option year. The NAFI will evaluate pricing based on the total price of the base period and first (1) option year.

4.1 For the second option year, pricing shall be submitted as a time and materials, with the Contractor providing labor categories and associated labor cost. All subcontractors proposed by the Contractor must meet or exceed the minimum qualifications outlined for the Contractor, including relevant education, industry familiarity, and consulting experience.

However, the NAFI reserves the right to waive this requirement on a case-by-case basis if the subcontractor demonstrates sufficient capability to perform the required tasks effectively.

Option year two will be assessed for price, realism, fairness and reasonable pricing.

4.2 Do not incorporate travel costs into the pricing of the services. Travel dates & cost will be coordinated & approved by the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) ahead of time and incorporated into the contract/task order by modification. See paragraph 29 of the NAF Standard Clauses for Travel Clause.

[END OF EVALUATION FACTORS]

Special Provisions

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

1. CONTRACTING OFFICER'S AUTHORITY

The Contracting Officer (CO) is the only person authorized to approve changes in any of the requirements under this contract and not withstanding any provisions contained elsewhere in this contract, authority remains solely in the CO. In the event the Contractor effects any such change at the direction of any person other than the CO, the change will be considered to have been without authority and will not be recognized for payment by the Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality (NAFI).

The CO is the only person authorized to make commitments with respect to contracts or orders.

The CO will handle all contacts with the vendor; make all arrangements for meetings, product or service evaluations, demonstrations, or presentations; attend the demonstration or presentation as required; and provide contractual support for follow-on action with the Contractor, unless otherwise delegated by the CO. The Contractor must contact the CO for contractual support, follow on actions, and meetings.

2. CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE (COR) RESPONSIBILITIES.

(a) The CO will designate an individual as the Contracting Officer’s Representative.

(b) The COR is responsible for monitoring the performance of work under this contract. In no event, shall any understanding, agreement, modification, change order, or other matter deviating from the terms of this contract be effective or binding upon the contracting NAFI unless formalized by proper contractual documents executed by the CO prior to the completion of the contract.

(c) This designation shall remain in effect throughout the life of the contract, unless terminated sooner in writing by the COor by reason of reassignment. Primary responsibilities of the COR may include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) The COR is responsible for performing post award administrative functions necessary to ensure performance of services required by this contract. If the COR feels performance by the Contractor has not met the level required by the contract, the problem shall be referred to the CO for resolution.

(2) The COR, in conjunction with the Technical Advisor, shall maintain a list of all products required to be delivered by the Contractor as well as when the product is delivered and its acceptability status.

(3) The COR will maintain a record of all contract deliverables and a copy of the email message or cover letter used to deliver the deliverables.

(d) The COR will work with CO to ensure the following responsibilities are adhered to:

(1) Verify that the Contractor performs the technical requirements of the contract in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications therein. Specific emphasis should be placed on the quality provisions, for both adherences to the contract provisions and to the contractor's own quality control program.

(2) Perform acceptance, in conjunction with the Technical Advisor, for the NAFI of services performed under this contract.

Special Provisions

(3) Communication will be the key to success of this effort. Maintain liaison and direct communications with the Contractor, Technical Advisor and the CO. Written communications with the Contractor and other documents pertaining to the contract shall be signed by the COR and a copy shall be furnished to the CO.

(e) Monitor the contractor's performance; notify the Contractor of deficiencies observed and direct appropriate action to effect correction. Record and report to the CO incidents of faulty or non-conforming work, delays, or problems.

3. SUPERVISION AND CONTROL

The NAFI will not exercise any supervision or control over the Contractor's employees performing services under this contract. Employees shall be accountable solely to the Contractor, who in turn is responsible to the NAFI.

4. TERM AND TYPE OF CONTRACT

The contract will be one base period (Base Term) with two (2) option periods. The base period will be one year from date of award. The NAFI may extend the contract by written notice to the Contractor at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the Base Term and option periods. The notice does not commit the NAFI to extend the contract.

The type of contract will be a Firm Fixed Price for both the base period and the first option year. The second option year will be a Time and Materials Contract. Cost reimbursables (travel only) will only be allowed for the services specified and effective for the period stated above with prior COR approval.

5. PAYMENT TERMS/SCHEDULE.

Air Force Services Center’s preferred method of payment is by Government Credit Card (Visa) within 30 days of receipt of proper invoice. Contractor shall invoice in equal monthly payments totaling 75% of the total contract price. The final 25% of the total contract price will be held in arrears and paid once all deliverables are received and accepted by the COR.

6. MODIFICATIONS

(a) Modifications will be issued by the CO in accordance with the Changes paragraph 14 from the NAF Standard Clauses and clause, NFC 243-1 – Changes Fixed Price as prescribed in the NAF Standard Clauses table. However, the following procedures shall be used for negotiation of modifications for additional quantities.

(b) The Contractor is not authorized to commence performance prior to issuance of the modification by the CO, unless approved by the CO in writing.

(c) All modifications are subject to the terms and conditions of this contract. In the event of conflict between a modification and this contract, the contract shall control.

7. TRAVEL

See paragraph 29 of NAF Standard Clauses.

8. PRIVACY ACT NOTIFICATION (Apr 1984) The Contractor will be required to design, develop, and/or operate a system of records on individuals, to accomplish an agency function subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93- 579, December 31, 1974 (5 U.S.C.552a) and applicable agency regulations. Violation of the Act may involve the imposition of criminal penalties.

9. PRIVACY ACT (Apr 1984) The Contractor agrees to:

Comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 (the Act) and the agency rules and regulations issued under the Act in the design, development, or operation of any system of records on individuals to accomplish an agency function when the contract specifically identifies the systems of records and the design, development, or operation work that the contractor is to perform.

Include the Privacy Act notification contained in this contract in every solicitation and resulting subcontract and in every subcontract awarded without a solicitation, when the work statement in the proposed subcontract requires the redesign, development, or operation of a system of records on individuals that is subject to the Act.

Include this clause, including this subparagraph, in all subcontracts awarded under this contract which requires the design, development, or operation of such a system of records.

In the event of violations of the Act, a civil action may be brought against the agency involved when the violation concerns the design, development, or operation of a system of records on individuals to accomplish an agency function, and criminal penalties may be imposed upon the officers or employees of the agency when the violation concerns the operation of a system of records on individuals to accomplish an agency function. For purposes of the Act, when the contract is for the operation of a system of records on individuals to accomplish an agency function, the Contractor is an employee of the agency.

“Operation of a system of records,” as used in this clause, means performance of any of the activities associated with maintaining the system of records, including the collection, use, and dissemination of records.

“Record,” as used in this clause, means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and contains the person’s name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particularly assigned to the individual, such as a fingerprint, voiceprint. or photograph.

“System of records on individuals,” as used in this clause, means a group of any records under the control of any agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particularly assigned to the individual.

Special Provisions

RFQ #F41999-25-Q-0041

10. PRIVACY OR SECURITY SAFEGUARDS (Aug. 1996)

The Contractor shall not publish or disclose in any manner, without the Contracting Officer’s written consent, the details of any safeguards either designed or developed by the Contractor under this contract or otherwise provided by the Government.

To the extent required to carry out a program of inspection to safeguard against threats and hazards to the security, integrity, and confidentiality of Government data, the Contractor shall afford the Government access to the Contractor’s facilities, installations, technical capabilities, operations, documentation, records, and databases.

If new or unanticipated threats or hazards are discovered by either the Government or the Contractor, or if existing safeguards have ceased to function, the discoverer shall immediately bring the situation to the attention of the other party.

11. SECTION 508

All electronic and information technology (EIT) procured through this contract must meet the applicable accessibility standards at 36 CFR 1194. 36 CFR 1194 implements Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. Further information on section 508 is available via the Internet at http://www.section508.gov.DATA STEWARDSHIP AND GOVERNANCE The NAFI will have unlimited rights to all technical data unless the contractor takes specific actions and includes prescribed legends in the proposal, contract, and/or data products to limit or restrict such NAFI rights for particularly identified items. “Technical data” refers to recorded information and includes (but is not limited to) research and engineering data and drawings, specifications, standards, process sheets, manuals, technical reports and computer software documentation. It does not include computer software or financial, cost/pricing or other contract and grant administrative data but does include any developed intellectual property not specific to the data.

Data and information generated during this agreement is owned by the NAFI. Data must be physically separated from the data of other users, on separate drives or computers, and appropriate firewalls be established to prevent other users from accessing NAFI data. The software, database schema and documentation must be placed in escrow and updated at each major release. In the event the vendor is sold or bankrupt, the vendor will pay any fees to convert the data for use on another systems.

Should the NAFI elect to not execute option years or at the end of the contract period, whichever is sooner, data must always be promptly accessible until converted to the new system with no additional separation fee.

12. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION (OCT 2016)

The Contractor (to include Contractor’s employees) shall not release to anyone outside the Contractor's organization any unclassified information, regardless of medium (e.g., film, tape, document), pertaining to any part of this contract or any program related to this contract, unless—

Special Provisions

The Contracting Officer has given prior written approval;

The information is otherwise in the public domain before the date of release; or

The information results from or arises during the performance of a project that involves no covered defense information (as defined in the clause at DFARS 252.204-7012) and has been scoped and negotiated by the contracting activity with the contractor and research performer and determined in writing by the contracting officer to be fundamental research (which by definition cannot involve any covered defense information), in accordance with National Security Decision Directive 189, National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical and Engineering Information, in effect on the date of contract award and the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) memoranda on Fundamental Research, dated May 24, 2010, and on Contracted Fundamental Research, dated June 26, 2008 (available at DFARS PGI

204.4 (DFARS/PGI view)).

Requests for approval for specific information to be released, the medium to be used, and the purpose for the release shall be identified to the CO. The Contractor shall submit its request to the CO at least 10 business days before the proposed date for release.

The Contractor agrees to include a similar requirement, including this paragraph, in each subcontract under this contract. Subcontractors shall submit requests for authorization to release through the prime contractor to the CO.

[End]

Special Provisions

One team delivering premier Services capabilities to Airmen, Guardians and families

Food 2.0 Portfolios

Portfolio 1a Portfolio 1b Portfolio 2 Port 3 – Phase I Port 3 B

Fairchild AFB, WA (Oct 11)

Barksdale AFB, LA (Apr 14)

Cannon AFB, NM (Mar 16)

Altus AFB, OK (Jul 16)

JB-Charleston, SC (Feb 19)

JBER, AK

(Oct 11)

Beale AFB, CA (Nov 13)

Dover AFB, DE (Nov 15)

McConnell AFB, KS (Jul 18)

Scott AFB, IL (Apr 19)

Travis AFB, CA (Oct 11)

Dyess AFB, TX (Jun 14)

Goodfellow AFB, TX (Jan 18)

Port 3 – Phase II Seymour-Johnson

AFB, NC

(Oct 20)

Little Rock AFB, AR (Oct 11)

Eglin AFB, FL (Oct 13)

JBSA-Randolph AFB, TX (Oct 16)

Grand Forks AFB, ND (Jul 18)

MacDill AFB, FL (Oct 11)

Ellsworth AFB, SD (Jun 13)

Minot AFB, SD (Aug 16)

Malmstrom AFB, MT (Aug 18) Port 4

Patrick SFB, FL (Oct 11)

FE Warren AFB, WY (Nov 14)

JBMDL, NJ

(Aug 19)

Nellis AFB, NV (May 22)

Vandenberg SFB, CA (Nov 13)

Davis Monthan

AFB, AZ

(June 2023)

Food 2.0 Transition Plan FY23 thru FY28

Installation

AFSVC

Food 2.0 Investment

Design Stage GC/Reno Status

Operational Status

Projected Closure Date

Food 2.0 Projected Operational

Holloman AFB, NM (DFAC) Funded Complete In progress Closed FY23 Q2 FY25 Q2

Offutt AFB, NE (DFAC) Funded 100% Backcheck- DFAC In Design Closed FY24 Q2 FY25 Q4

Offutt AFB, NE (Alert DFAC) Funded 95% - NC3 Base Project –

Designed In New NC3 Alert Fac.

Destroyed Mar 19 FY27 Q3

Luke AFB, AZ (DFAC & Kiosk) Funded Complete Pre-solicitation Operational Feb 25 FY26 Q1

Shaw AFB, SC (DFAC & Kiosk) Funded 100% In-Design Temp. Closed May 23 FY26 Q3

Eielson AFB, AK…