FA9301-11-R-0002-A0003.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

1. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the $1M Ceiling from FAR Clause 52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items Addendum

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-Sep-2010

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 FA9301-11-R-0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Sep-2010

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

25-Sep-2010

CODE

95 CONS/PKB - FA9301

RONDA SATORI 5 S. WOLFE AVENUE

EDWARDS AFB CA 93524

FA9301 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA9301-11-R-0002

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items (Jan 1999)

(a) The government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) PAST PERFORMANCE

(2) PRICE

Past Performance is approximately equal to Price when being evaluated.

(b) Options. The government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

(c) 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 (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2:

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive selection in which competing offerors past and present performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR

52.212-1, Instructions To Offerors, the offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract and all such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Initially, offers shall be ranked according to price, including option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Pricing

Schedule by the unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount for each. Copies of the

Pricing Schedule will be necessary in order to submit a proposal for each Option Year.

../../Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/far/FAR52.000.doc#b522122 ../../Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/far/FAR52.000.doc#b522122 ../../Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/far/FAR52.000.doc#b522121 ../../Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/far/FAR52.000.doc#b522121

B. 1. Assessment Methodology. Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and

(2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving Full Food Service that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation.

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. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating

“Unknown Confidence,” meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in the solicitation, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited

Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in MP5315.3, Table 3.

B.2. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent or current. Current performance will generally have greater impact in the performance assessment than recent performance. Performance that is more recent will usually have more impact than less recent performance. Recent/current contracts are: (a) contracts, MP 5315.3 PARAGRAPH 5.5.2.2, TABLE 3 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

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

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

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

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

../../Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/51VBJK04/MP5315.3.doc which have been completed within the last 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation, or (b) contracts that are currently being performed (with a performance record of at least one year from the date of issuance of this solicitation). Past performance, information that is found to be neither current nor recent will not be evaluated.

B.3. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all current or recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the dining facility services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude/complexity, contract type and contract environment of the DFAC requirement. The relevancy considerations in descending order of importance are as follows:

B.3.1. Scope. Scope is reflected in the tasks/functions referenced throughout the DFAC

Performance Work Statement (i.e., dining facility management, cooking and food preparation, serving and replenishing food, etc.)

B.3.2. Magnitude/Complexity. Magnitude is reflected in the size/scale of the dining facility services provided, to include the number of customers and meals served.

B.3.3. Contract Type. Category of contract type (such as Firm Fixed Price, Cost Plus Fixed

Fee, Time & Materials/Labor Hour, etc.).

B.3.4. Contract Environment. Location of contract performance (such as an Air Force installation, a DOD or NASA installation, or another Government or industry site).

B.4. For each recent or current past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the scope, magnitude/complexity, contract type and contract environment aspects (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to efforts that are considered to be of the type and similar in scope; magnitude/complexity; contract type, and contract environment when compared to the services described in this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major/critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms (PIFs) submitted by the offeror and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing current or recent, and relevant contracts:

Table 1 – Relevancy Definitions

Assessment Area Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat Relevant

Scope

(Reference Performance based Work Statement

(PWS))

Responsible for operation of a dining facility where performance is essentially the same as or greater than tasks as outlined in the PWS

Responsible for operation of a dining facility where the performance involved tasks are very similar to those outlined in the PWS

Responsible for operation of a dining facility where performance involved some similar tasks outlined in the PWS

Magnitude /

Complexity

Responsible for operation of a dining facility with a workload same as or greater than the historical workload as outlined in the PWS

Responsible for operation of a dining facility with workload similar to the historical workload as outlined in the

PWS

Responsible for operation of a dining facility with a workload somewhat less than historical workloads as outlined in the PWS

Contract Type Performance under a

DoD Firm-Fixed

Price Contract

Performance under a Fixed Price

Contract

Any other contract type other than Fixed

Price

Contract Environment Contract performance on a military installation

Contract performance at a government facility

Contract performance at any

U.S. location.

B.5. Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of relevant efforts that are recent or current. For each recent or current past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, and CPARS information. It may include interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, interviews with commercial clients, and interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. Pursuant to the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) requirements, the assessment will consider the Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted or Transferred (DART) rates when compared to the industry averages as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (according to the applicable contract NAICS code) with regard to the safety performance of previous contracts. The assessment will consider information related to Government Furnished Property already in the offeror’s possession (on other contract efforts) in terms of the quality of managing the Government Property. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. “Adverse” is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

C. In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

D. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating and is determined to be responsible, 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 procedures set forth in paragraph

H below establish that award to the State Licensing Agency (SLA) is appropriate.

E. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance 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 assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision. Award shall be made to that offeror unless the procedures set forth in paragraph H below establish that award to the State Licensing

Agency (SLA) is appropriate.

F. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

G. The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

H. Randolph-Sheppard Act - It is the policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) to afford

State Licensing Agencies (SLA) a priority in the award of contracts for the operation of military dining facilities regardless of the size status of the proposed SLA vendor. The SLA for the State of California is the California Department of Rehabilitation (CDR). To that end, if a proposal received from the CDR does not exceed that of the offeror that represents the best value, as selected under paragraph D or E above, by 5% and if the past performance of the vendor as proposed by the CDR is evaluated and judged to have a performance confidence assessment of at least Satisfactory Confidence; the proposal as submitted by the CDR shall be selected for award of the contract regardless of the size status of that vendor.

(End Addendum)

(End of Summary of Changes)