Nutrition Care Services 52.212-2_21 May 2025.docx

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION COMMERCIAL ITEMS

Pursuant to FAR Subpart 12.301(c), FAR Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items, Paragraph (a) is replaced in its entirety by addendum as follows:

A. The Randolph Sheppard Act (RSA) applies to this solicitation; therefore, priority will be given to the State Licensing Agency (SLA) pursuant to the RSA. The priority established by the RSA applies to the award of contracts for the operation of cafeterias on Federal property. The evaluation criteria is the same for all competing offerors, including the responsible SLA.

B. All Offerors will be evaluated for proposal responsiveness. Offerors that meet the proposal responsiveness will be evaluated for Technical Acceptability. The Technical factor is a “gate” criterion, and Offerors must achieve an acceptable rating of yes at all subfactors for this factor in order to be considered for award. Only technically acceptable offerors will be evaluated for Small Business Participation Plan, Present and Past Performance, and Price. This award will be made on an “All or None” basis, meaning that an acceptable Offeror must address all aspects and required locations of the solicitation. If an Offeror is unable to provide services simultaneously at all locations, it will be rejected as not technically acceptable.

1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1. The award will be made on an “All or None” basis to the Offeror whose proposal represent the best value to the Government. The award will be made to the Offeror with the highest Performance Confidence rating and are found to:

- Be Responsive; and

- Be Technically Acceptable on all subfactors; and

- Have an Acceptable Small Business Participation Plan; and

- Have at least a Satisfactory/Neutral Past Performance Confidence rating; and

- Have a fair, reasonable, and balanced Proposal Price

2. Evaluation Process A. Proposal Responsiveness:

A.1. DHA will perform an evaluation to confirm the required SF 1449 and applicable SF 30(s) are complete as well as ensure the Offeror provided the required information in each volume. DHA will consider an Offeror ineligible for award if any volume was not submitted by the required date and time, is incomplete (missing items, signatures, etc.) or does not comply with format requirements.

A.2. Proposals deemed nonresponsive will be excluded from further evaluation.

B. Technical Acceptability:

B.1. Technical Approach. DHA will evaluate the Technical Approach required documents stated in the Instructions to Offerors, Section 2.2.1.

Table 2 . Technical Approach

B.2. Transition Plan. DHA will evaluate the Transition Plan required documents stated in the Instructions to Offerors, Section 2.2.2.

Table 3. Transition Plan

B.3. Corporate Experience and Management. DHA will evaluate the Corporate Experience and Management required documents stated in the Instructions to Offerors, Section 2.2.3.

Table 4. Corporate Experience and Management.

B.4. Recruiting Plan. DHA will evaluate the Recruiting Plan required documents stated in the Instructions to Offerors, Section 2.2.4.

Table 5. Recruiting Plan

B.5. Staffing Plan. DHA will evaluate the Staffing Plan required documents stated in the Instructions to Offerors, Section 2.2.5.

Table 6. Staffing Plan

B.6. Quality Control Plan. DHA will evaluate the Quality Control Plan required documents stated in the Instructions to Offerors, Section 2.2.6.

Table 7. Quality Control Plan

B.7. Contingency Plan. DHA will evaluate the Contingency Plan required documents stated in the Instructions to Offerors, Section 2.2.7.

Table 8. Contingency Plan

B.8. Therapeutic Diets Training Plan. DHA will evaluate the Therapeutic Diets Training Plan required documents stated in the Instructions to Offerors, Section 2.2.8.

Table 9. Therapeutic Diets Plan

B.9. Offerors found to be Unacceptable under the Technical Capability factor will be excluded from further evaluation.

B.10. All responsive proposals that receive an Acceptable rating under the Technical Capability factor will be evaluated for Small Business Participation.

C. Past Performance:

C.1. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of Present and Past Performance to assess the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform in accordance with the PWS. In conducting the evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance volume and information obtained from other sources, such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), interviews with Program Managers (PM) and COs, and other known commercial sources. The past performance evaluation may include verification of dates of service for recency and of type of work for relevancy.

C.1.1. To be recent, the effort must have been ongoing for at least twelve (12) months continuously within the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails to meet this recency criteria will not be further evaluated.

C.1.2. The relevant contracts will be those that provided Nutrition Care Food services as outlined below in Table 10. To be relevant, the reference should involve similar scope, magnitude and complexity to the solicitation requirements. Therefore, the reference shall be for Nutrition Care Food services in a medical facility and other provisions as shown in Table 1 below.

• Medical Centers or Hospitals cafeteria/dining room, Grab & Go, Patient Room Services (to include Therapeutic Diets); and

• Include Registered Dietitian in staff plan; and

• Customer is DoD, other Federal Agency, or civilian hospital

• Performance performed in multiple locations in multiple states.

• Medical Centers or Hospitals cafeteria/dining room, Patient Room Services (to include Therapeutic Diets); and

• Customer is DoD, other Federal Agency, or civilian hospital

• Performance performed in multiple locations within the same state.

• Medical Centers or Hospitals cafeteria/dining room; and

• Customer is DoD, other Federal Agency, or civilian hospital

• Performance performed at a single location within a single state.

C.1.3. IDIQ Contract References: The Offeror shall determine the mix of contracts to best represent depth and breadth of past performance through relevant contracts. References on IDIQ contracts submitted as individual TO/DOs will only be counted as one past performance reference regardless of the quantity of TOs submitted for the same contract. Likewise, references for the same contract but different option periods will be evaluated as a single past performance reference.

C.1.4. Past Performance References: The evaluation for the Past Performance section will ensure the Offeror provided a record of relevant and recent past performance with no more than five (5) previous/current contracts with a minimum of three (3) references being from the Prime Contractor. If a past performance reference is submitted for a teaming partner/subcontractor, the Offeror shall ensure the teaming partner/subcontractor is identified on Contractor Teaming Arrangement (Attachment 1). The Government will use data provided by each Offeror in this section and may use data obtained from other sources in the evaluation. If more than five (5) past performance references are submitted, the PPET may only consider information provided for the first five (5) references of the past performance volume. PPQs sent to the references by the Offeror shall be included in Volume IV for each reference.

C.1.5. Joint Venture: If an Offeror is a JV with no past performance information, the past performance record of all companies forming the JV will be considered. If the JV, as an Offeror, has less than three (3) past performance records, the past performance records of the individual companies comprising the JV may be submitted as long as the total number of references does not exceed the maximum number of five (5) past performance references for the Offeror.

C.1.6. The performance 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. The Offeror will be afforded the opportunity to respond to any adverse information which has not been previously addressed. For adverse information identified, the DHA will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. More recent and more relevant past performance may be weighed more heavily than less recent and somewhat relevant past performance.

C.1.6.2. Performance Confidence Assessment: As a result of the relevancy and performance quality ratings of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating IAW Table 11. Offerors for whom information on past performance is 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 a “Neutral Confidence” rating for the Performance Confidence Assessment. If an Offeror’s past performance rating is “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence,” the Offeror will not be considered for award.

Table 11. Performance Confidence Rating

C.1.7. Offerors found to be Unacceptable under the Technical Capability factor, and/or Unacceptable under the Small Business Participation factor, and/or who receive a Limited Confidence or No Confidence rating under Present and Past Performance Confidence factor will be excluded from further evaluation. All proposals that receive an Acceptable rating under the Technical Capability factor, Small Business Participation factor, and that receive a Neutral Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, or Substantial Confidence rating under the Present and Past Performance Confidence factor will be evaluated for Price.

D. Price D.1. The Government will evaluate price for fairness and reasonableness by utilizing the Sample Pricing Spreadsheet (Attachment 7).

D.1.1. The spreadsheet lists separate tabs for each year. Each tab represents a one-year option period with the exception of the base year which represents ten months. Each tab will be evaluated separately and combined.

D.1.2. Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 0008, Transition Period during the base year. This is a one- time cost and will not be included in any of the option years.

D.2. Given that FAR 52.217-8 and FAR 52.217-9 provides the Government may exercise the Option to Extend Services and Option to Extend Term at the rates specified in the contract. As part of price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services by adding six months of the offeror's final option year price to the offeror's total price. Offerors are not required to enter a price for the six-month extension period. This does not mean that the 52.217-8 will be utilized, it is also noted that 52.217-8 shall incorporate the previous option period pricing at time of execution, not necessarily the pricing of the final option period that is being evaluated.

D.3. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated by adding the sum for all the contractor-proposed estimated prices for each year of CLINs on the pricing spreadsheet.

D.5. Proposals that made it to the price evaluation shall be analyzed to determine if the proposed prices are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance presents an unacceptable risk to the Government or if award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high contract prices for contract performance.

D.6. The Government does not intend to conduct a price realism analysis unless the CO determines it necessary for such purposes as determining whether an Offeror’s low price reflects a lack of understanding of the contract requirements or assessing the offeror’s ability to perform IAW the PWS.