Amend_2_FA301018R0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Revise RFP Section M at paragraph M-900.II.E.5.c. by deleting the following sentence: For the purposes of applying the preference, "fair and reasonable price" means that the SLA's TEP does not exceed the offer that represents the best value (as determined by the contracting officer after applying the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation) by more than five percent of that offer's TEP as determined by the Government.

2. Extend the proposal due date to 22 Dec 2017 at 3pm (Central Time).

3. Update clause 252.219-7003(Dev) and add clause 52.208-9.

4. Post an updated Performance Work Statement (PWS)(RFP Attachment 1) dated 18 Dec 17. Updates to PWS are found at Appendix H, and are highlighted in yellow.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 9

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-Dec-2017

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X FA301018R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Nov-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

18-Dec-2017

CODE

81ST CONTRACTING SQUADRON

DEITRE BROWNE

310 M STREET, RM 102

KEESLER AFB MS 39534-2701

FA3010 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA301018R0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 19-Dec-2017 03:00 PM to 22-Dec-2017 03:00 PM.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

52.208-9

The following have been added by full text:

252.219-7003(DEV 2018-O0007)

252.219-7003 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts)—Basic. (DEVIATION 2018-O0007)

The following clause is provided in full text; however, it is incorporated by reference.

SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (DOD CONTRACTS)—BASIC (DEVIATION

2018-O0007) (DEC 2017)

This clause supplements the Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, clause of this contract.

(a) Definitions. “Summary Subcontract Report (SSR) Coordinator,” as used in this clause, means the individual who is registered in the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) at the Department of Defense (9700) and is responsible for acknowledging receipt or rejecting SSRs in eSRS for the Department of Defense.

(b) Subcontracts awarded to workshops approved by the Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled (41 U.S.C. 8502-8504), may be counted toward the Contractor’s small business subcontracting goal.

(c) A mentor firm, under the Pilot Mentor-Protege Program established under section 831 of Public Law 101- 510, as amended, may count toward its small disadvantaged business goal, subcontracts awarded to—

(1) Protege firms which are qualified organizations employing the severely disabled; and

(2) Former protege firms that meet the criteria in section 831(g)(4) of Public Law 101-510.

(d) The master plan is approved by the Contractor's cognizant contract administration activity.

(e) In those subcontracting plans which specifically identify small businesses, the Contractor shall notify the Administrative Contracting Officer of any substitutions of firms that are not small business firms, for the small business firms specifically identified in the subcontracting plan. Notifications shall be in writing and shall occur within a reasonable period of time after award of the subcontract. Contractor-specified formats shall be acceptable.

(f)(1) For DoD, the Contractor shall submit reports in eSRS as follows:

(i) The Individual Subcontract Report (ISR) shall be submitted to the contracting officer at the procuring contracting office, even when contract administration has been delegated to the Defense Contract Management Agency.

(ii) Submit the consolidated SSR for an individual subcontracting plan by selecting “Department of Defence (DoD)(9700)” from the top of the second dropdown menu in the Government agency in Block 7 (“Agency to which the report is being submitted”). The contractor shall not select anything lower.

(2) For DoD, the authority to acknowledge recipt or reject reports in eSRS is as follows:

(i) The authority to acknowledge receipt or reject the ISR resides with the contracting officer who receives it, as described in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this clause.

(ii) The authority to acknowledge receipt of or reject SSRs resides with the SSR Coordinator.

(End of clause)

The following have been deleted:

252.219-7003 (Dev)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

M-900. Evaluation Basis for Award

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This procurement will be conducted pursuant to the Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA), 20 U.S.C. 107 et seq.- Operation of Vending Facilities and 34 CFR 395.33- Operation of Cafeterias by Blind which establish priority for blind persons recognized and represented by the State Licensing Agency (SLA), in the award of contracts for the operation of cafeterias on federal facilities. Accordingly, although the solicitation is set aside 100% for small business, the Mississippi State Licensing Agency will also be permitted to submit a proposal in accordance with 34 CFR 395.33(b). Evaluation criteria are the same for all competing offerors, including the responsible SLA, with the exception of the statutory preference which must be applied as indicated in II.E.5.

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered approximately equal to price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government or to the SLA under the Randolph-Sheppard Act priority based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below. Trade-off considerations may result in the determination that it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror.

By submission of its offer, the offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, and representations and certifications. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Failure to meet a solicitation requirement may result in an offer being determined unawardable.

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

B. Evaluation Factors for Award: The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate the proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1 – Technical (Volume II) Factor 2 – Price (Volume I – Completed RFP) Factor 3 – Past Performance (Volume III)

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. This may occur at any time even if all material issues have not been discussed or if the offeror has not yet been afforded the opportunity to submit a proposal revision. Written notice of exclusion from the competitive range will be provided to unsuccessful offerors.

After conclusion of discussions and receipt of final proposal revisions, the government will evaluate final proposals remaining in the competitive range and award will be made according to section II.E. below.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Price Reasonableness: Price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness in accordance with one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described under FAR 15.404-1, which includes, but is not limited to, price analysis.

Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) is anticipated to determine price reasonableness; therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-1(b)(1). However, if at any time during this competition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists or that price reasonableness cannot be determined, offerors may be required to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the CO to determine price reasonableness.

2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): Prices will be evaluated based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which will be calculated by multiplying the quantities for the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs X001-X009 for all contract periods identified in the SF33 (Schedule of Supplies/Services) by the CLIN's unit price. The base period plus all option periods will then be summed to equal the TEP. The TEP includes two cost reimbursement not-to-exceed CLINs (X007 and X008) amounts which the government will provide.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below.

One technical rating will be assigned to the Technical factor.

Technical Acceptability Ratings, Defined Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Technical Proposal. This Technical Factor will assess the offeror’s proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement as well as assess the offeror’s proposed staffing approach by numbers, types, and skills of personnel and the cross utilization of personnel. The evaluation will address the offeror’s response as outlined below in the right-hand column. The “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for quick reference only.

Staffing Plan with Staffing Matrix Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

Offerors shall submit a written technical proposal that provides their proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement.

Staffing Plan:

As part of their Technical Proposal, Offerors are required to submit a proposed Staffing Plan that demonstrates their approach used to determine cross utilization of personnel within each functional area throughout the workforce. This written plan, along with the completed Staffing Matrix (RFP Attachment 9), must demonstrate the offeror’s proposed staffing approach by numbers, types, and skills of personnel as well as cross utilization of personnel.

To be determined Acceptable, the Technical Proposal will have to demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the workforce required to meet PWS requirements.

Staffing Plan:

As part of the Technical Proposal evaluation, the offeror’s Staffing Plan, including the completed Staffing Matrix (RFP Attachment 9), will be evaluated. To be determined Acceptable, the Staffing Plan (and Matrix) must demonstrate adequate staffing by numbers, types, and skills of personnel, as well as demonstrate adequate cross utilization of personnel within each functional area throughout the workforce.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: Using questionnaires, the contracting officer will seek recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement critical to overall successful performance. Major or critical aspects include tasks related to food preparation (i.e. food preparation and cooking), customer processing (i.e. cashiering and bussing), and equipment maintenance and repair. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the last three (3) years from date of receipt of proposal. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume.

Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Adverse past performance information is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

c) Key Personnel: For offerors/joint venture members or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the date of receipt of proposal) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past three (3) years from the date of receipt of proposal. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror/joint venture member, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor. Offerors are reminded that a letter of intent to hire does not constitute employment.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror should have provided the total dollar value and total period of performance for each order in the series.

-The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope.

These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent five (5) submitted contracts.

The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Rating Definition

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To qualify, the past/present effort must meet the following criteria:

The annual value for the contract must meet or exceed $6.5 million dollars.

Performance duration must be 3 or more years.

Performance must be in a Department of Defense dining facility environment.

Performance must have the following nine performance elements: (a) food preparation (b) food serving (c) food ordering (d) dining facility management

(e) menu posting (f) table bussing service (g) cashier service (h) equipment maintenance/ repair (i) housekeeping services.

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To qualify, the performance may fail to meet all of the requirements for “Very Relevant” but meets all of the following:

The annual value for the contract must meet or exceed $4 million dollars.

Performance duration must be 3 or more years.

Performance must have been in a Department of Defense or federal agency dining facility or civilian cafeteria.

Performance must include (a) food preparation (b) food serving (c) food ordering (d) dining facility management (g) cashier service

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To qualify, the performance fails to meet all of the requirements for “Very Relevant” or “Relevant” performance but meets all of the following:

The annual value of the contract must meet or exceed $3 million Performance must have been in a federal agency dining facility or civilian cafeteria.

Performance must include (a) food preparation (b) food serving

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude and of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To qualify, all performance fails to meet one of the three relevancy ratings: “Very Relevant”, “Relevant” or “Somewhat Relevant”.

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can reasonably be assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent and 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 and relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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 is 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 past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral.” A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or to respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

E. Evaluations will be conducted in the following manner:

1. Initially, offers will be evaluated for technical acceptability. The technical evaluation will determine if the proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Offerors will receive a rating of either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.”

2. Offerors receiving an “Acceptable” technical rating will then be ranked according to price.

3. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is assessed a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point.

Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers unless the procedure set forth in paragraph 5 below establishes that award to the SLA is appropriate.

4. If the lowest priced offeror is not assessed a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment or until all offerors are evaluated.

The SLA will be evaluated for past performance regardless of price rank. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision. Award shall be made to that offeror unless the procedure set forth in paragraph 5 below establishes that award to the SLA is appropriate.

5. If the best value offeror as determined under paragraph 3 or 4 is not the SLA, the Government will determine if award to the SLA shall preempt the best value offeror using the following criteria in accordance with the Randolph- Sheppard Act:

a) The government will establish a competitive range for the purposes of determining whether the statutory preference must be applied. This competitive range will not result in discussions as described under paragraph

II.A.1.

b) Offerors included in the competitive range whose past performance was not evaluated under paragraphs

3 or 4 are included based on price. Since the competitive range will not result in discussions, there is no need to evaluate the past performance of these offerors as their past performance rating isn’t needed to complete II.E.5.c.

c) If the SLA is within the competitive range and its past performance is evaluated as Substantial

Confidence, demonstrating it can provide food service of high quality comparable to what is currently provided, and can provide the service at a fair and reasonable price, comparable to that available from other providers, then preference/award will be given/made to the SLA subject to a determination of contractor responsibility.

d) If the SLA proposal does not meet all criteria listed above, award to the SLA will not preempt the best value offeror and award will then be made to the best value offeror subject to a determination of contractor responsibility.

6. Clarifications and communications, as defined in FAR 15.306, do not constitute discussions. The government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. However, the government may determine it is necessary to conduct discussions.

(End of Summary of Changes)