FA481917R4007_0001.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:

A. Correct POP on CLIN 4007

B. Update 52.212-2 (items have been highlighted) and remove Transition Plan as a deliverable in PWS para 1.3.26 as w ell as update para

1.3.4 (item has been highlighted).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-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 FA481917R4007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

18-Oct-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 is extended, X 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

05-Dec-2017

CODE

325 CONS/LGCB STOP 28

501 AIREY AVE, STE 5

TYNDALL AFB FL 32403-5526

FA4819 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA481917R4007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 4007

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

The Contractor shall provide Mission Essential personnel to support Mission Essential Mess Attendant Services in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) para 1.3.18.Not to Exceed Amount (NTE) is $75,000

To:

The Contractor shall provide Mission Essential personnel to support Mission Essential Mess Attendant Services in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) para 1.3.18. Not to Exceed Amount (NTE) is $75,000.

The period of performance 1 Feb 2022 through 31 Jan 2023.

DELIVERIES AND PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 4007 has been changed from:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

POP 01-DEC-2021 TO

30-NOV-2022

N/A 325 FSS/FSVF, DINING FACILITY

CINDY HOBBS

298 MINNESOTA AVENUE, BLDG. 1690

TYNDALL AFB FL 32403

283-2207

FOB: Destination

F4A378

To:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

POP 01-FEB-2022 TO

31-JAN-2023

N/A 325 FSS/FSVF, DINING FACILITY

CINDY HOBBS

298 MINNESOTA AVENUE, BLDG. 1690

TYNDALL AFB FL 32403

283-2207

FOB: Destination

F4A378

The following have been modified:

ADDENDA TO FAR 52.212-1

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1—Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Items (Jan 2017)

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision paragraphs 52.212-1 (e) “Multiple offers” is deleted in their entirety.

FAR paragraph 52.212-1(c), “Period for acceptance of offers,” is tailored as follows: “The offeror agrees to hold the prices firm for 120 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.”

The following paragraphs provide the specific solicitation instructions:

1. Addendum to 52.212-1(a), NAICS code and small business size standard. The NAICS code is 722310 and the size standard is $38.5M for this requirement.

1.2. Addendum to 52.212-1(b), Submission of offers. Submit signed and dated offers no later than Tuesday, 12 December 17, 1230 hours. Central Standard Time to:

325 CONS/PKBA

Attention: Mr. David Kigerl & TSgt Amber Maestri

501 Airey Dr Suite 5

Tyndall AFB, FL 32403

1.3. Offerors are responsible for submitting offers, revisions, and amendments to the solicitation so as to reach identified personnel by the date and time specified in this solicitation.

1.3.1. Electronic Copies (1 ea.) and Paper Copies (1 ea.) of Offers are Required

1.3.2. Electric Copies of Offers

One electronic copy of each volume of the entire offer must be submitted. All electronic documents shall comply with the page size, format, and page limits identified in paragraph 1.5 below. The electronic version of the proposal shall be sumitted in a .pdf format compatible with

Microsoft Office. The title of the electronic documents shall include the RFP number, proposal volume number and offeror’s CAGE code (i.e. FA4819-17-R-4007, Volume 1: Price, CAGE #).

Electronic offers may be sumitted in any of the following three ways:

1.3.2.1 Submit offers electronically to the Government via the Army AMRDEC site at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/.

1.3.1.2. Hand carry/deliver offers in the form of CDs/DVDs containing electronic files.

Contractors shall request base access for hand carried proposal deliveries NO LATER THAN 24 hours prior to the proposal due date/time by sending an email request to the Contracting Officer identifying the company name and list of individuals requesting access to Tyndall AFB, FL.

1.3.1.3. Mail offers in the form of CDs/DVDs containing electronic files to the address noted in paragraph 1.2 above.

1.3.3 Paper Copies of Offers

1.3.3.1 Binding and Labeling: Each volume of the paper copy of the proposal shall be separately bound and labeled in standard three ring loose-leaf binders and clearly identified on the front and side. Each volume of the paper copy of the proposal shall comply with the page size, format and page limits identified in paragraph 1.5 below. Each volume shall be complete in itself and shall not repeat information contained in other volumes. Each volume shall contain a Table of

Contents, Cross References, and a List of Tables and Drawings (if applicable). Cover pages, Table of Contents, glossary and tabs/dividers will not be counted against the page limits. All pages after the Table of Contents shall be numbered. Pages depicting tables, charts, graphs and figures will count toward the page limit. Elaborate formats, bindings, and color presentations are neither desired or required. The number of copies of each volume is specified in Table 1 below.

1.4. All offers shall be complete, clearly presented, and contain sufficient detail for effective evaluation as detailed in Addendum 52.212-2 of this solicitation. Offers shall be neat, indexed

(cross-indexed as appropriate) and assembled in an orderly manner. Elaborate artwork, expensive visual, and other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired. Offers shall only contain information that is relevant to this solicitation.

1.5. Page Size, Format and Limit

1.5.1. A page is defined as each face of an 8 ½” X 11” document containing information. Page limitations shall be treated as maximums and shall apply to all electronic files whether submitted via AMRDEC or CD/DVD. Pages in excess of the maximum page limits defined below will not be evaluated.

1.5.2. For the purposes of formatting, font size shall not be less than 12 pitch, except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document. All printing shall be single spaced. Use at least

1 inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾-inch side margins.

1.5.3. Pages shall be numbered sequentially in each volume and identify the solicitation number.

1.5.4. Page limits shall be considered maximums. Pages in excess of the maximum will not be read or evaluated. When Evaluation Notices (ENs) are necessary, the Government will issue them by electronic means to prospective offerors. Page limitations may be placed on responses to ENs and such limitations will be provided at the time the EN is issued.

1.5.5. Electronic files should be located in appropriately labeled files so as to easily discern each volume as outlined in paragraph 1.3.2. Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents identifying the subparagraphs within that volume. The table of contents is not included in the maximum page limitation.

1.6 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS:

To assure timely and equitable evaluation of offerors, the offer must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub factors. Non-conformance with these instructions may result in elimination from evaluation. Failure to meet any requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

Offerors are cautioned to follow the detailed instructions carefully, as the Government reserves the right to make an award based on initial offers received, without discussion of such offers.

Non-responsive offers will not be evaluated.

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirement but rather shall provide facts and convincing rationale addressing how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the

Government has no prior knowledge of their experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal. The response shall consist of the following four volumes to be eligible for award:

Table 1

Volume Title Page Count Format Vol 1 Executive Summary:

Cover Page

Master Table of Contents

Tab 1: Narrative & Authorized Offer Personnel

Tab 2: Proof of Financial Responsibility

Tab 3: 8(a) Certification

Tab 1 Limited to 5 pages, No Limit for other tabs

Electronic & 1 ea.

Paper Copy

Vol 2 Price:

Tab 1: SF1449 and all amendments

No Limit Electronic & 1 ea.

Paper Copy

Vol 3 Technical:

Table of Contents

Tab 1: Subfactor 1 – Staffing Plan

Tab 2: Subfactor 2 – Quality Control

Tab 3: Subfactor 3 - Transition Plan

Tab 4: Subfactor 4 - Mission Essential Contractor

Service Plan

30 pages max Electronic & 1 ea.

Paper Copy

Vol 4 Past Performance:

Table of Contents

Tab 1: PPI References

Tab 2: Subcontractor Consent (if required)

25 pages max

(3 pages per PPI

Reference Max)

Electronic & 1 ea.

Paper Copy

The specific content of each volume is discussed below:

1.6.1. VOLUME I – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Submit paper copy (1 ea.) and electronic copy. Tab 1 limited to 5 pages, no limit for other tabs.

Cover Page to include the following information:

1.6.1.1. Solicitation Number

1.6.1.2. Solicitation Date and Time specified for receipt of offers

1.6.1.3. Company name

1.6.1.4. Company address and remit to address if different than mailing address

1.6.1.5. Company point of contact (s)

1.6.1.6. Company point of contact(s) e-mail address (as_

1.6.1.7. Company point of contact(s) telephone numbers

1.6.1.8. SAM registration expiration date

1.6.1.9. CAGE code

1.6.1.10. DUNS number

1.6.1.11. Registration confirmation for NAICS code 722310

1.6.1.12. Offer Acceptance Period.

1.6.2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND MISCELLANEOUS DATA:

1.6.2.1. Narrative & Authorized Offer Personnel (limited to five pages). The Offeror’s narrative summary of the entire proposal should be concise, to include addressing the significant risks, and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding price. The salient features should tie in with 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors/Sub Factors. Also identify authorized Offeror personnel and individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government. Provide the name, title, CAGE, DUNS and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to the Offeror’s proposal and who can obligate the company contractually. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal. If none proposed, submit a clear Affirmation of no

Exceptions, Deviations, or Waivers within the body of the summary narrative.

1.6.2.2. Proof of Financial Responsibility. The Offeror shall include Proof of Financial

Responsibility (letter from the Offeror’s bank on the bank letterhead) as acceptable evidence to the CO that the Offeror has sufficient financial resources to cover startup expenses for this acquisition IAW FAR 9.104-3(a). See Attachment 3 as an example template.

1.6.2.3. Proof of 8(a) Certification or if the Offeror is part of an 8(a) Joint Venture, the Offeror, shall provide a copy of the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) approved 8(a) Joint Venture certification documentation. The Joint Venture Agreement must be received by SBA prior to proposal due date and approved before award of any resulting contract. If you are contemplating a joint venture on this project, you must advise your assigned SBA Business Opportunity

Specialist (BOS) as soon as possible. It is also recommended that the agreement be submitted as soon as practicable to ensure compliance with established regulations. Any corrections and/or changes needed can be made only when your BOS has adequate time for a thorough review before the proposal due date. NO CORRECTIONS AND/OR CHANGES ARE ALLOWED

AFTER TIME OF SUBMISSION OF OFFERS.

1.6.2.3.1. If a Joint Venture is contemplated, offerors shall provide the following information not later than the date and time proposals are due:

1.6.2.3.1.1. Include all requirements at 13 C.F.R. Part 124.513, including size concern information;

1.6.2.3.1.2. Include a statement confirming that the 8(a) firm will comply with FAR Clause

52.219-14(c)(1); and

1.6.2.3.1.3. Joint Venture registration in SAM with NAICS code of 722310 on representations and certifications.

1.7. VOLUME II – PRICE: Submit paper copy (1 ea.) and electronic copy. No page limit.

Offers shall submit the following information in Volume II:

1.7.1. SF 1449 and amendments (if applicable):

1.7.1.1. Complete blocks 12, 17a, and 30a, 30b, and 30c of the SF 1449.

1.7.1.2. Complete the proposed unit prices and extended total prices for Contract Line Item

Numbers (CLINs) 0001 – 4007, to include all option periods. All unit prices shall be rounded to no more than two places after the decimal point. The extended amount shall equal the unit price multiplied by the quantity of each unit. Offerors shall insert fully burdened hourly rates for each hour to extend each facility past normal operating hours at each facility for CLINs X002 and

X004.

The proposal prices must be submitted for all CLINs for the base year and all four (4) option periods within the SF1449. FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is included in the RFP and will be incorporated into the resultant contract; IF exercised, the clause will extend the terms and conditions of the contract period being extended at the rates specified in the contract, the evaluation of which will be considered and included in the initial evaluation report of the proposal (to include the base period plus all option periods) as demonstrated herein. Evaluation of options and FAR 52.217-8 will not obligate the Government to exercise such option.

CLIN 0008 Transition, X005 Minor/Major Maintenance and Repair, and X0007 Mission

Essential Services are pre-established amounts with an applicable NTE stated in the

CLINs description. These will be excluded from Total Evaluated Price evaluation;

however the amounts will be added for the purpose of calculating total contract value.

1.7.1.3. The offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation

(and attachments). The solicitation constitutes the model contract. Offerors shall clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation and provide accompanying rational.

1.7.2. A statement acknowledging all solicitation amendments, if any were issued.

1.7.3. Completed representations and certifications at FAR Provision 52.212-3 and all other provisions and clauses that require fill-in information. See FAR 52.212-3 for those representations and certifications the offer shall complete electronically.

1.7.4. A Collective Bargaining Agreement applies to this solicitation. Offerors shall ensure all pricing submitted complies with the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Attachment 2 of this solicitation.

1.7.5. General Instructions: These instructions are to assist you in submitting information that is required to evaluate the price reasonableness, completeness, and balance of the proposal.

Proposals shall be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their price reasonableness, completeness, and balance. The Government may not award a contract based on a proposal with unbalanced pricing. Compliance with these instructions is mandatory and failure to comply may render your proposal ineligible for award. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror.

1.7.5.1. Price Reasonableness: A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

It is expected that price reasonableness will be determined based on the comparison of each offeror’s total evaluated price (TEP) to the TEPs of all evaluated technically acceptable proposals.

1.7.5.2. Unbalanced Pricing: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite a reasonable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price. An example of an unbalanced offer would be proposed contract line items that are significantly less than or significantly overstated in relation to the other proposed contracted line items (either of the offeror’s proposal or the same contract line items as proposed by other offerors). The government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed contract line items in the same contract line items category between option periods or the proposed prices from year to year or above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government.

1.7.5.3. Price Competition: The government has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. However, IAW FAR 15.403-1(b) and FAR

15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror may be required to submit other than certified cost or pricing data. All information relating to the proposed price including all required supporting documentation must be included in the Price Volume.

Extreme care should be exercised to ensure that no price data of any kind are included in any other volume of the proposal.

1.8. Financial Institution Reference Sheet (Attachment 3 to this solicitation)

1.9. VOLUME III – TECHNICAL: Submit paper copy (1 ea.) and electronic copy. Limited to

30 pages.

The Technical Volume shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. Your responses will be evaluated against the technical evaluation criteria defined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2. Proposals shall provide convincing rationale addressing how the technical portion of the offer meets solicitation requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of the offeror’s experience. The Government will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offer. Statements that the Offeror understands, can, or will comply with the PWS (including referenced publications, technical data, etc.); paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof (including applicable publications, technical data, etc.); and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” etc., will be considered unacceptable and will negatively impact the Offeror’s rating under the Technical factor. Elaborate artwork, expensive visual, and other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired.

1.9.1. The Technical Volume shall be comprised of four subfactors.

The Technical Volume shall address the proposed approach to meeting the minimum requirements of the following four sub-factors: Staffing Plan, Quality Control, Transition Plan, and Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan.

TAB 1 - Subfactor 1: Staffing Plan in accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

TAB 2 - Subfactor 2: Quality Control Plan in accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

TAB 3 - Subfactor 3: Transition Plan in accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

TAB 4 - Subfactor 4: Mission Essential Contactor Services Plan in accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

1.10. VOLUME IV - PAST PERFORMANCE: Limited to no more than 25 pages. Only references for past efforts/contracts of relevance are desired.

1.10.1. 1.10.1. Offerors shall submit past performance information (PPI) on no more than three of the most recent and relevant (see addendum 52.212-2 for recency and relevancy criteria) contracts performed for any customer where offerors performed as the prime contractor that demonstrate offerors’ ability to successfully perform the scope and breadth of the requirements described in the PWS for this solicitation. Past performance information submitted in excess of the first three contracts submitted will not be evaluated unless a joint venture/team arrangement identified in paragraph 1.10.3 is being proposed.

1.10.2. Offerors with no same or similar past performance shall include this information in their past performance information.

1.10.3. If a teaming arrangement/Joint Venture is contemplated during this solicitation, offerors shall submit any recent and relevant performance information on previous teaming arrangements/Joint Ventures with the same partner or as the same CAGE in this solicitation. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide past performance information on no more than three contracts each.

1.10.4. Subcontractor Consent. Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Offerors shall submit in their Past Performance Volume a signed consent letter from all proposed subcontractors consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

1.10.5. Offerors shall submit the following information for each contract submitted in their past performance volume:

1.10.5.1. Company/Division name

1.10.5.2. Product/Service

1.10.5.3. Contracting Agency/Customer

1.10.5.4. Contract Number

1.10.5.5. Contract Dollar Value

1.10.5.6. Period of Performance

1.10.5.7. Verified, up-to-date name, address, e-mail address, telephone number of the

Government evaluator, contracting officer or customer POC responsible for procuring your services.

1.10.5.8. Explanation of how the scope of the referenced contract meets the relevancy definitions in this solicitation. Identify what elements of each contract are deemed relevant to this solicitation and indicate what percentage of service was performed by the offeror (prime), subcontractor (if applicable) and teaming contractor (if applicable).

1.10.5.9. Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions.

1.10.5.10. Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable by the customer or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions, the resolution(s) implemented, and results.

1.10.5.11. If any of the contracts submitted were performed as teaming arrangements or joint venture partners, offerors shall thoroughly explain the relationship of each partner (e.g.

managing partner under the contract submitted) and the duties that each assumed in the submitted contract.

1.10.6. Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 4). Offerors shall complete Section 1, Contract Information and send the Past Performance Questionnaires to their contract POCs listed in their Past Performance Volume. Past performance questionnaires received in excess to the first three contracts listed in the Past Performance Volume or, if applicable, for each party to the first time joint venture effort, will not be evaluated.

THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEND OUT THE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

RESTS SOLELY WITH THE OFFEROR.

1.10.6.1. Offerors shall indicate in their past performance information, which POCs past performance questionnaires were sent to and confirm that the questionnaires were submitted.

1.10.6.2. Once questionnaires are completed by the POCs, the information contained in the questionnaires is considered source selection sensitive and not releasable to you, the offeror.

1.10.6.3. Questionnaires shall be e-mailed by POCs directly to Mr. David Kigerl at david.kigerl.2@us.af.mil and TSgt Amber Maestri at amber.maestri.2@us.af.mil.

1.10.6.4. Completed questionnaires received or routed through the offeror, subcontractor or teaming contractor will not be accepted.

1.10.6.5. Offerors are responsible for sending and tracking the timely completion and submittal of past performance questionnaires. The responsibility to send out the questionnaires rests solely with the offeror and shall not be delegated to any other entity.

1.10.6.6. Offerors shall ensure questionnaires are submitted to Mr. David Kigerl and TSgt Amber

Maestri no later than the solicitation closing date and time. Offerors shall also inform POCs of any extensions to the solicitation closing date and time.

1.11. Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(c), Period for Acceptance of Offers. This paragraph is tailored to read as follows: “The Offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 120 days from the date specified for receipt of offers.”

1.12. Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(f), Late submissions, modifications, revisions, and withdrawal of offers. This paragraph is tailored to read as follows: Offerors are responsible for submitting electronic offers by the solicitation due date and time. Offers received after the solicitation due date and time are considered late and will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f).

1.13. Federal Holidays: The following Federal holidays are observed by this base.

New Years’ Day 1 January

Martin Luther King, Jr Birthday Third Monday in January mailto:david.kigerl.2@us.af.mil mailto:amber.maestri.2@us.af.mil

George Washington’s Birthday Third Monday in February

Memorial Day Last Monday in May

Independence Day 4 July

Labor Day First Monday in September

Columbus Day Second Monday in October

Veteran’s Day 11 November

Thanksgiving Day Fourth Thursday in November

Christmas Day 25 December

1.14. DISCREPANCIES: If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the perceived omission or error. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(g).

1.15. SITE VISIT: A site visit will be held on 16 November 2017 from 1300-1430. All interested offerors shall meet at Tyndall AFB’s Visitor Center at 1245. All questions will need to be submitted to either Mr. Kigerl and/or TSgt Maestri, questions/answers asked during the site visit are not considered valid unless received in writing. A list of all attendees at the site visit will be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at http://www.fbo.gov (as an

Amendment to the solicitation within 5 business days after the site visit). The contractor shall complete the Request for Site Visit Pass attached (Attachment 5) to this solicitation. The request shall be e-mailed to david.kigerl.2@us.af.mil and amber.maestri.2@us.af.mil NLT five (5) business days prior to the site visit. Once request is received the contractor will be provided the location to meet for the site visit.

1.16. INQUIRES BY OFFERORS: Mr. David Kigerl, TSgt Amber Maestri, or Ms. Norma Myers

(Contracting Officer) are the sole points of contacts for this acquisition. All questions or concerns regarding this request for proposal must be directed IN WRITING via e-mail (preferred method) to david.kigerl.2@us.af.mil and amber.maestri.2@us.af.mil or mailed (least preferred method) to the address above. Questions will not be accepted past 22 November 2017 at 11:00 am CST.

(End of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1)

ADDENDUM 52.212-2

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 - EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1.1. This is a Subjective Trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS), and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS)

Award will be based on the best value approach, where Technical (acceptable/unacceptable) and

Past Performance is significantly more important than price, meaning award will be made to the offeror who provides the greatest confidence that they will meet the Government’s requirements affordably.

mailto:david.kigerl.2@us.af.mil mailto:amber.maestri.2@us.af.mil mailto:david.kigerl.2@us.af.mil mailto:amber.maestri.2@us.af.mil

1.1.2. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications. The Government intends to award a contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR), as supplemented, whose offer conforms to solicitation requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the solicitation and is judged, based on the evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the

Government.

1.1.3. The Government intends to evaluate offers and make an award without discussions.

Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their written proposals (e.g., defining the relevance of the offeror’s technical information and adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor clerical errors. Any such exchange between the offeror and the Government will be for clarification only and will not constitute discussions within the meaning of FAR 15.306(a).

Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance and price standpoint.

1.1.4. If at any time during the evaluation process it is determined to be in the best interest of the

Government to open and hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and

Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the selection decision.

1.1.5. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation, and may render the offer unacceptable to the government. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.), rather it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the government.

1.1.6. Below is a synopsis of the evaluation steps; the complete evaluation process is defined in more detail immediately following the synopsis:

Below is a synopsis of the evaluation steps; the evaluation process is defined in more detail immediately following the synopsis.

2. SYNOPSIS OF EVALUTION:

The first (1st) step of the evaluation process is to review the cover page and if applicable, any proposed Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture Documentation for completeness. Teaming arrangements shall conform to all requirements identified in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of this solicitation and including all elements stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to

Offerors – Commercial Items. If an offeror is claiming this business approach, failure to submit

Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture documentation will render the offerors proposal non-responsive and no further evaluation will be conducted.

2.1. The second (2nd) step of the evaluation process is to evaluate prices and rank all responsive proposals by overall TEP from lowest to highest. The TEP shall be the sum of: contract line item numbers (CLINS) 0001-4007 (this will include the base year, option years, and the 6-months of service possible under FAR 52.217-8). To account for the extension period(s) possible under Clause 52.217-8 (maximum of 6 months); proposed pricing for the 6-month extension will be based on fifty percent (50%) of Option Year 4. CLIN X005 for the base and all option periods (Minor\Major Maintenance and Repair) and CLIN 0008 (Transition Period

CLIN) are pre-established Not to Exceed amounts that will be excluded from TEP evaluation;

however, the amount will be added for the purposes of calculating total contract value.

2.2. The evaluation team will then proceed to the third (3rd) step In the 3rd step, technical evaluations will start with the lowest priced responsive offeror. If the lowest priced offeror receives a technical rating of acceptable, proposal evaluations will continue until a minimum of two technically acceptable proposals have been evaluated.

2.3. After technical evaluations conclude, the fourth (4th) evaluation step begins. In step 4, the lowest price technically acceptable proposal will be evaluated for past performance acceptability.

If the lowest priced offeror receives a past performance rating of “substantial confidence,” proposal evaluations will continue until a minimum of two technically acceptable proposals have been evaluated. At that point, evaluations cease and the Contracting Officer will make an integrated assessment best value award decision considering the TEP and the Past Performance

Confidence Rating.

2.4. If the lowest priced offeror is rated technically unacceptable or receives a past performance rating of less than substantial confidence, evaluation will continue in order of price until an offeror is rated technically acceptable and receives a past performance rating of substantial confidence. At that point, evaluations cease and the Contracting Officer will make an integrated assessment best value award decision considering the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence

Rating.

3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

Proposals will be evaluated using three evalution factors, which are (I) Price (II) Technical, and

(III) Past Performance:

3.1. All offeror cover pages and (if applicable) teaming arrangements will be reviewed for completeness in accordance with the requirements stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items to determine the offeror responsive or non-responsive. Only those offers determined complete and responsive will be considered for further evaluation.

3.2. FACTOR I: PRICE:

3.2.1. Offers conforming to all requirements of this solicitation will be ordered from highest to lowest based on Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Total Evaluated Price will be calculated as follows:

3.2.2. Total Evaluated Price = (Total Evaluated Price for Base Period) + (Total Evaluated Price for Option Period 1) + (Total Evaluated Price for Option Period 2) + (Total Evaluated Price for

Option Period 3) + (Total Evaluated Price for Option Period 4) + (Total Evaluated Price for

Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8):

3.2.3. Total Evaluated Price for the Base Period and Option Periods 1 through 4. Quantities identified will be multiplied by the unit price to confirm the extended price and then the extended price for all CLINS will be added together for a total for that specific period.

3.2.4. Unit prices shall be used in the event that extended prices are calculated incorrectly. It is important for offerors to verify their extending pricing is accurate.

3.2.5. FAR clause 52.217-8 (Extension of Services) is included in this RFP and will be incorporated into the resultant contract. Upon exercise, the clause will extend the terms and conditions of the contract period being extended at the rates specified in the contract. The CO may exercise this clause during the life of the contract at any option period to extend services for up to 6-months.

Pricing for FAR 52.217-8 will be evaluated during the initial evaluation via inclusion in the TEP of the offerors proposal (to include the base period plus all option periods) as demonstrated herein. Offerors shall not include pricing for FAR 52.217-8 in their proposals.

For TEP purposes, the 6-month extension will be based on fifty percent (50%) of Option Year 4 pricing where the 6-month extension may be used to cover the option to extend services IAW clause 52.217-8. Evaluation of options and FAR 52.217-8 will not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

3.2.6. Prices will be evaluated for completeness, fair and reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing.

Offers whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.2.7. Reasonableness: The Government will use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price: comparison of proposed prices received

(adequate price competition), comparison of previously proposed prices and previous

Government contract prices, use of parametric estimating/rough yardsticks, comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices, comparison with Independent Government cost estimates, comparison with market research, and/or analysis of pricing information provided by the offeror.

3.2.8. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each offer to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different CLINs for the same or similar services in the same or similar quantities with respect to option pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the prices are significantly unbalanced or if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.3. FACTOR II: TECHNICAL:

Technical evaluations will start with the lowest priced responsive offeror. If the lowest priced offeror receives a technical rating of acceptable, proposal evaluations will continue until a minimum of two technically acceptable proposals have been evaluated. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for evaluation of past performance.

3.3.1. The rating assigned to this factor will be based on the offeror’s technical volume. The validity and thoroughness of the offeror’s technical volume will be evaluated as specific evidence of the offeror’s understanding and capability to perform this requirement. An overall rating will be assigned; failure to be assigned an acceptable rating in any subfactors will render the entire technical volume unacceptable:

3.3.2. Evaluators shall assign a technical rating as outlined, Table C-1.

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

3.3.3. Subfactor 1: Staffing Plan. The Staffing Plan will be rated acceptable if it meets all the requirements of paragraphs 3.3.3.1 through 3.3.3.5. below.

3.3.3.1. The Staffing Plan clearly demonstrates a reasonable approach to managing and staffing the contract based on the requirements of the PWS. The plan shall have included an organizational chart that identifies key personnel such as the on-site contract manager and alternate contract manager(s), and all other personnel the offeror proposes to manage and staff this requirement. The organization chart shall also identify the number and labor category of personnel proposed, and a narrative description for each duty title on the organizational chart.

3.3.3.2. The Staffing Plan details a reasonable approach how the number and labor category of personnel proposed will meet the guest flow rates identified in paragraphs 1.3.3. and 1.3.7 of the

PWS.

3.3.3.3. The Staffing Plan details how the offeror intends to recruit, retain, and replace sufficient personnel who have the knowledge, experience, and skills to perform Mess Attendant services as required in the PWS.

3.3.3.4. The Staffing Plan identifies how the offeror intends to continue uninterrupted services during personnel absences, such as sickness, vacations, etc. without any degradation in services provided.

3.3.3.5. The Staffing Plan identifies how personnel will be trained to ensure personnel comply with the sanitation requirements in paragraphs 1.3.8 of the PWS.

3.3.4. Subfactor 2: Quality Control Plan. The Quality Control Plan is acceptable when the plan provides an effective and complete approach that adequately addresses requirements of the

PWS in accordance with paragraph 1.3.15. The plan shall include as a minimum:

3.3.4.1. The role and authority of the Primary Quality Control personnel.

3.3.4.2. Methods to be used for identifying and preventing defects before performance becomes unacceptable.

3.3.4.3. Procedures used to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services and what corrective actions will be taken.

3.3.5. Subfactor 3: Transition Plan. The Transition Plan will be rated acceptable if it addresses the offeror’s proposed approach for transitioning into the facility IAW PWS paragraph 1.3.25.2.

The plan shall address the Contractor’s proposed strategy for ensuring smooth transition;

schedule for transition; procedures to provide appropriate mix of skilled employees to perform responsibilities for all contract functions and throughout the contract period; and the equipment and supplies to be used in performance of the contract.

3.3.6. Subfactor 4: Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan. The Mission Essential

Contractor Services Plan will be rated acceptable if it meets the requirements of the PWS paragraphs 1.3.18.2. and 1.3.18.3.

3.3.6.1. The Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan demonstrates a reasonable approach to how the offeror will continue to perform the essential contractor services identified in CLIN

X0007 Mission Essential Personnel during periods of crisis.

3.3.6.2. The Mission Essential Contractor Services plan addresses all the requirements in

DFARS Provision 252.237-7024 Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services (OCT

2010) paragraphs (b) through (b) (2) (v) and paragraphs 1.3.18 through 1.3.18.6 of the PWS.

3.3.7. Only technically acceptable proposals will move on to the Past Performance phase of the evaluation.

4. FACTOR III: PAST PERFORMANCE:

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s ability to meet the performance requirements. The evaluation team will review all recent and relevant past performance information collected to determine a past performance rating of either “acceptable” or “unacceptable”.

The Government will evaluate the recency and relevancy of the past performance information from the following sources:

a. Past Performance Information (PPI) submitted by the offeror

b. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs)

c. Government Databases: Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract

Reporting System (eSRS)

d. Any other data independently obtained by the government

4.1. Past performance will first be evaluated for recency

4.2.. Recent: Ongoing contracts (a minimum of six months is required to be considered current) with a performance history and contracts completed within three years from the issue date of this solicitation.

4.3. Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy and shall be assigned one of the relevancy definition ratings as described below when the offeror has identified and demonstrated what elements of each contract are deemed relevant to this solicitation and indicate what percentage of service was performed by the offeror (prime), subcontractor (if applicable) and teaming contractor (if applicable). The final determination of the identified and demonstrated relevancy elements of each contract will be the decision of the government.

4.3.1. The primary aspect of relevancy, as it pertains to this solicitation, is based on the similarity of services performed in the past. Relevance for Past Performance will be assessed against the following criteria:

(1) Served a specified number of meals each month

(2) Provided cooks in accordance with paragraph 1.3.13 of the PWS

4.3.2. Definitions of relevancy are as follows:

4.3.3.. VERY RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(1) Served at least 15,000 meals each month and

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

(1) Served at least 13,000 meals each month and

4.3.5. SOMEWHAT RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope

(1) Served at least 10,000 meals each month and may or may not have

4.3.6. NOT RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope

(1) Served less than 9,999 each month and did or

(2) Did not provide cooks in accordance with paragraph 1.3.13. of the PWS

4.4. Finally, Past Performance will be evaluated for quality and assigned one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings based on the information provided and obtained from sources listed under paragraph 4. Performance confidence assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood for the Government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based upon the offeror’s past performance information.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments

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 a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral

Confidence

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

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.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

4.5. 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 not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Past performance regarding minor members of Joint Ventures will be considered in accordance with the member’s share of the prospective contract;

4.6. Integrated Assessment. In order to be considered for award, the offeror’s technical proposal must be rated as “Acceptable.” The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest price offer if the Contracting…