HC1028-14-R-0004-0005.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 08-May-2014 10:00 AM to 15-May-2014 10:00 AM.

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM M

SECTION M

M.1. SOURCE SELECTION.

M.1.1 Basis for Award. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with FAR Part 12 in conjunction with FAR Part 15 as supplemented by DFARS and the DARS. These regulations are available electronically at http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of the technical, management, past performance, and cost/price. The DeCA EBS contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certification and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the government. The government seeks to award to the offeror who gives DeCA the highest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated and/or higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation actors as long as the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the higher ranked technical, management, overall business approach, and/or greater past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

M.1.2 This procurement is covered by the Trade Agreements Act, 19 U.S.C. et seq. (2000), as implemented by FAR Part 25 and DFARS Part 225. The Government will evaluate offers in accordance with the policies and procedures of FAR part 25 and DFARS Part 225.

M.1.3. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The government intends to award one single indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract for the DeCA EBS requirement; however, the government reserves the right to make no award at all.

M.1.4. Unrealistic Offers. The Government reserves the right, but is not obligated, to review prices to determine whether they are so low that they reflect a lack of technical understanding, and to reject a proposal for offering unrealistically low prices. Additionally, unbalanced pricing proposes an unacceptable risk to the government and may be reason to provide an unacceptable rating for an offeror’s proposal. Offerors who have submitted cost/price proposal that has received an evaluation as non-acceptable, may not be considered for award.

M.1.5. Administrative Requirements. The Government reserves the right not to consider for award any proposal that does not adhere to the administrative requirements of this solicitation.

M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS.

M.2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.

The government will use the following evaluation factors and subfactors to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the government using a best value tradeoff evaluation process. The Technical and Management factors are of equal importance. Past Performance is less important than the Technical and Management factors. Subfactors under each factor are of equal importance. Elements of subfactors, if applicable, are of equal importance.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Deliver a 21st Century Retail Business Solution.

Subfactor 2: Improve Business Functionality

Subfactor 3: Keep Pace with Grocery Technology

Element 1: Release Management

Element 2: Integration Services

Factor 2: Management

Subfactor 1: Provide Customer Support

Subfactor 2: Business Partnership

Element 1: Program Management

Element 2: Change Management Plan

Element 3: Deployment Plan

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Cost/Price

M.2.2 In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price.

TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT FACTORS.

M.3.1 Technical and Management Rating. The technical and management ratings evaluate the quality of offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. Each technical and management subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table 2 Combined Technical/Risk Ratings, below.

M.3.1.1 The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the technical and management subfactor requirements. In addition, the color rating depicts any risks associated with the offeror’s proposed approach and includes an assessment of risk of unsuccessful performance, to include the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, and the need for increased government oversight. The definitions of terms used in the color ratings (“deficiency”, “risk”, “significant weakness”, “strength”, “uncertainty”, and “weakness”) are contained in Table 1.

Table 1 - Definitions Relating to the Technical Evaluation Rating Process

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Risk as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal/quotation for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., there is more than one way to interpret the proposal/quotation or inconsistencies in the proposal/quotation indicating there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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

M.3.2 Factor 1: Technical. Color/adjectival ratings for subfactors 1.1 through 1.3 will be provided at the subfactor level. All components/elements included in the individual subfactors are equal in importance and will be evaluated as having met the standard or does not meet the standard. Components/elements will not receive an individual color rating.

M.3.2.1 Subfactor 1.1: Deliver a 21st Century Retail Business Solution. Evaluate the offeror’s proposal to substantiate the COTS grocery solution is fully integrated and operational as identified in SOO Section 3.0.1. This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide common data elements, a common operational data store, consistent graphical user interfaces (GUI), and module interoperability. The standard is met when the offeror’s solution uses common data elements across increments 1 and 2 and has consistent GUI across 50 percent or more of the functional capabilities as defined across all increments.

M.3.2.2 Subfactor 1.2: Improve Business Functionality. Evaluate the offeror’s proposal to provide business functionality as identified in SOO Section 3.0.2. This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide commercially available grocery business capabilities. The standard is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the ability to provide a supplier portal that integrates cataloging, pricing, and promotional functionality; built-in algorithms for computer assisted ordering (CAO), demand forecasting, item replenishment, and stock-keeping unit (SKU) optimization; omni-channel POS and CRM capabilities; and reporting capabilities to support retail analytics, as defined in the Functional and Technical Requirements section of the RFP.

M.3.2.3 Subfactor 1.3: Keep Pace with Grocery Technology. Evaluate the offeror’s proposal to meet the technical requirements identified in SOO Section 3.0.3. This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide release management and integration services to maintain industry parity.

· Element 1.3.1: Release Management. The standard for release management is met when the vendor’s published roadmap for future grocery capabilities enables DeCA’s solution to remain within one software release of the commercial standards for a vendor portal, demand driven forecasting and demand replenishment, and in-lane and self-checkout POS capability.

· Element 1.3.2: Integration Services. The standard for integration services is met when the offeror’s proposed POS software is integrated with on-line shopping and patron device mobile check out.

M.3.3 Factor 2: Management. Color/adjectival ratings for subfactors 2.1 through 2.2 will be provided at the subfactor level. All components/elements included in the individual subfactors are equal in importance and will be evaluated as having met the standard or does not meet the standard. Components/elements will not receive an individual color rating.

M.3.3.1 Subfactor 1: Subfactor 2.1: Provide Customer Support. Evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing customer support as identified in SOO section 3.0.4. The standard is met when the Training Plan (DID 5.8) demonstrates the ability to prepare the DeCA workforce to utilize the EBS and a metric for ensuring successful transfer of knowledge.

M.3.3.2 Subfactor 2.2: Business Partnership. Evaluate the offeror’s approach to managing the program, to include but not limited to program management, change management, and deployment approach in accordance with the SOO section 3.0.6 and the RFP.

· Element 2.2.1: Program Management. Overall program management includes the offeror’s methodology to managing, implementing, delivering, and sustaining the solution, as defined in SOO section 5.0 Deliverables. The standard is met when the offeror’s total management approach meets the service level objectives (SLO) identified in the Technical/Functional Requirements of the RFP, and provides an approach to risk management that includes identification and mitigation as detailed in DIDs and the Technical/Functional Requirements section of the RFP.

· Element 2.2.2: Change Management Plan. The standard for the change management plan is met when the offeror’s plan adheres to a common change management methodology as defined in DID 5.19.

· Element 2.2.2: Deployment Plan. The standard for the deployment plan is met when the offeror’s plan details the offeror’s approach to managing world-wide deployments simultaneously.

M.3.4 Factor 3: Past Performance. The past performance evaluation assesses the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements.

M.3.4.1. Ratings. The past performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments describe in Table 5 Past Performance Confidence Assessments, below. Performance confidence assessment ratings are assigned pursuant to paragraphs M.3.4.6 and M.3.4.7.

M.3.4.2. Evaluation Process. The government will assess the offeror’s capability to perform under the EBS contract by evaluating the offeror’s present and past performance as a prime contractor on three comparable retail projects and if applicable, one present and past performance for up to two teaming partners as prime contractors. Only present and past performance data regarding similar efforts either completed within the last 5 years or ongoing will be evaluated. The absence of relevant present and past performance information will result in the assignment of a neutral rating. Complex integrated retail grocery business solutions will be deemed more relevant than projects of lesser size, scope, and complexity. The government may consider all relevant present and past performance. Recent efforts are those which have been performed during any portion of the last five years, including those efforts currently being performed. The government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s past performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. Adverse past performance records that are considered recent and relevant will be evaluated and included as part of the confidence assessment.

M.3.4.3. Recent Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be eligible for consideration, the cited effort for the prime offeror and the prime offeror’s teaming partner’s joint ventures, and/or significant subcontractors must have been performed within 5 years prior to the issuance of the solicitation, or, for on-going efforts, must have been in place at least 9 months before the proposal due date. Past performance information that fails this condition will be assessed as not meeting the recency requirement.

M.3.4.4. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the tasks performed under those contracts relate to the technical and management subfactors and cost/price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this procurement may be considered). Consideration will be given to performance based services, software purchases, contract pricing arrangement (FFP), annual revenue, and network solutions with geographical scope of the Continental United States. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations including teaming partners, joint ventures and/or significant subcontractors. A teaming partner, joint venture, and/or significant subcontractor is considered to be a company that provides 20% or more of the support required, and/or a company that provides a critical portion of the effort required and/or that influences the results of performance.

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, join venture, and/or significant subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s assessment of relevancy. The government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent contracts:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

M.3.4.5. Performance Quality Assessment. The government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the technical and management subfactors and cost/price factor; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this procurement may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, interviews with government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the government. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for SDB concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantage Business Participation Program –Disadvantage Status and Reporting. Pursuant to DFARS Part 215.305 (1)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.29-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. “Adverse findings” 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 problems, 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. “Positive findings” is defined as past performance information that supports a greater than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any favorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. The government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 3. Past Performance Quality Ratings

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

During the contract period, offeror performance meets or met contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded many to the government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the offeror were highly effective.

VERY GOOD (VG)

During the contract period, offeror performance meets or met contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded some to the government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the offeror were effective.

SATISFACTORY (S)

During the contract period, offeror performance meets or met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the offeror appear or were satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M)

During the contract period, offeror performance does not or did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the offeror has not yet identified corrective actions. The offeror's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)

During the contract period, offeror performance does not or did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery in a timely manner is not likely. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the offeror's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

M.3.4.6. Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical and management subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents and overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, and as a result, will receive an Unknown Confidence rating for the past performance factor.

M.3.4.7. By way of an example, An exceptional, recent past performance that occurred five years ago may not affect the Performance Confidence Assessment as much as a recent effort that occurred with the last year and has an unsatisfactory performance. Also, an example of favorable recent and relevant performance of a prime offeror may have greater weight than examples provided for the prime’s teaming partners, joint venture, and/or significant subcontractor(s). A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the government than an Unknown Confidence rating.

Table 4 – Performance Confidence Assessments

NO

CONFIDENCE

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

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

M.3.5 Factor 4: Cost/Price.

M.3.5.1. For award purposes, the Offeror’s firm-fixed price cost/price proposal will be evaluated based upon the total evaluated price proposed for each proposal for the base period and all option periods, as specified in the Attachment – Evaluation Quantities. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise such options.

M.3.5.2. The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine if it is reasonable and complete. Price reasonableness will be determined using one or more the techniques described in FAR 15.404. For a price to be complete all solicitation requirements must be priced, figures correctly calculated and costs presented in the government-provided pricing model. The government will verify that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures are correctly calculated, and costs are presented in a clear and useful format. The offeror shall provide a description of the details of each solution proposed in enough detail by providing all cost breakouts (work breakdown structure) for all items (such as, but not limited to hardware, software, hardware maintenance, software maintenance, training, help desk support, operation supplies, travel, and support services) to support their total proposed price to allow evaluation using one or more techniques as defined in FAR 15.404. The Government reserves the right, but is not obligated, to review prices to determine whether they are so low that they reflect a lack of technical understanding, and to reject a proposal for offering unrealistically low prices.

M.3.5.3. Unbalanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable proposal the price of one or more 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 separately priced items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may receive an unacceptable rating if the contracting officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government.

M.3.5.4. Discussions. The government may award without discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the government to hold discussions, offeror responses to ENs will be evaluated. However, offerors are cautioned to ensure any revisions through the EN process that the offeror wants the government to evaluate in the FPR are reflected in the FPR because the FPR, and only the FPR, will be considered in making the source selection decision.

M.3.6. Small Business Subcontracting Plan/Small Business Participation Proposal. The Government will review the offeror’s small business subcontracting plan/small business participation proposal, and it will be evaluated, on an acceptable/non-acceptable basis, by the contracting officer, Small and disadvantaged business utilization specialist, and small business administration for compliance with FAR Part 19.704, DFARS 215.304, and DISA subcontracting goals. Offerors who have submitted subcontracting plans that have received a final evaluation as non-acceptable will not be considered for award.

To receive an “Acceptable” rating the offeror’s plans must:

a. include all information required by FAR 52.219-9 and other items required by Section L.

b. Detail a solid process (either currently in use or propose)whereby the offeror demonstrates the capability to successfully track and report (in ESRS) subcontracted dollars and percentages at all tiers. The end product must clearly identify the percentage of Small Business efforts in all the appropriate categories. The offeror must highlight the checks and balances utilized to ensure proper NAICS codes are applied, and how the offeror ensures that credit is given for only those businesses who meet the definition of a small business subcontractor found in FAR Part 2.101.

c. Advocate small business initiatives. At a minimum, the offeror describes its planned use of initiatives for development of new sources of services required by this solicitation and the initiative to identify and use small businesses such as small disadvantaged businesses (includes historically black college or university, minority institutions), woman-owned small businesses, HUBZone businesses, and service disabled veteran owned small businesses which have the capabilities to satisfy requirements of this contract.

M.3.7. Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan. The government’s review of the offeror’s Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan will consider:

a. the degree to which the offeror addressed OCI concerns,

b. the offeror’s approach for mitigation OCI issues,

c. the offeror’s approach to mitigate potential OCI’s at the task order level,

d. The adequacy of its OCI training and oversight programs,

e. the adequacy of its procedures, and

f. whether or not the offeror’s OCI plan and/or mitigation strategy complies with all regulatory and statutory requirements including FAR Subpart 9.5.

The above elements and the OCI Plan will be evaluated on an acceptable/non-acceptable basis. No contract award can be made without an acceptable OCI Mitigation Plan. Accordingly, the offeror is encouraged to submit their OCI Mitigation Plan prior to the proposal due date to ensure a government approved/acceptable OCI mitigation plan is provided with the offer. If applicable the government may enter into communications with the offeror to address any unresolved issues within the OCI Mitigation Plan; such communications are not considered discussions.

M.3.8 Section 508. The government will evaluate the offeror’s compliance with the Section 508 Accessibility Standards listed in the attached SOO. Compliance with Section 508 will be considered prior to evaluating any of the selection criteria. Any proposal failing to meet the Section 508 Accessibility Standards, as listed in the SOO, shall be eliminated from consideration for award.

M.3.9 Proof of Concept.

POS Software Proof of Concept Demonstration.

Offerors in the competitive range will be required to demonstrate their proposed POS software solution to members of the SSET in the DeCA Test Lab at DeCA Headquarters, Fort Lee, Virginia on current DeCA provided POS hardware.

Offerors will be given two calendar days (7 am – 7 pm Eastern) to install, test, and perform the Proof of Concept demonstration in DeCA’s test lab at Fort Lee, VA. Following the demonstration and within the specified time period, the vendor is responsible for removal of their solution from the GFE.

The Proof of Concept demonstration is designed to validate the offeror’s POS software solution. The results of the demonstration will not be separately rated, but may be used to adjust the ratings previously assigned. If the offeror’s demonstration provides further clarity and/or understanding of the offeror’s solutions, evaluators may adjust their technical/management subfactor ratings accordingly. If the offeror’s demonstration is unable to meet the test plan objectives, evaluators may adjust their ratings accordingly. Changes to the offeror’s POS software solution that was tested during the Proof of Concept demonstration will be subject to an evaluation to determine the risk to the government associated with any un-validated change, and may result in an adjustment of the 2.1 subfactor rating. The following are the test plan objectives that will be performed at a regular register and a self-checkout (SCO) (except check processing):

1. Demonstrate the ability to scan at least 28 items per minute

2. Scan all global standard item and coupon bar codes to include universal product code, European article number, global trade item number, GS1, and random weight bar codes

3. Produce lookup display both on regular and SCO

4. Record item weight and extended price on receipt

5. Void and price override by cashier and / or front end manager

6. Apply paper coupons and prevent coupon stacking

7. Tender the transaction by using cash / check

8. Complete transaction and print receipt

9. Extract transaction log after completion of 25 or more transactions.

The hardware characteristics are located in the EBS Technical Library located at http://www.commissaries.com/ebs M.4. Contract Documentation

M.4.1 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, completed representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offeror being ineligible for award.

(End of Summary of Changes)