HT940827RE003 – NUTRITION CARE SERVICES

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – EVALUATION OF OFFERS

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1. Best Value Tradeoff: The Government intends to award Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract(s) to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal(s) conforms to the solicitation requirements and represents the best value to the Government. The Government will award contract(s) to the Offeror that presents the best value for each MTF The evaluation will be conducted utilizing a streamlined best-value tradeoff process in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures.

1.2. Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA) Priority: In accordance with the solicitation's instructions, the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 U.S.C. 107) applies to this acquisition. In the event that one or more RSA State Licensing Agencies (SLA) submits a proposal, the source selection will be carried out in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 107, 34 C.F.R. 395.33, and other relevant laws and regulations. If an SLA proposal is determined to be within the competitive range and has a reasonable chance of being selected for award, the SLA will receive priority as mandated by law.

1.3. Relative Importance of Factors: The Government will evaluate proposals based on three (3) evaluation factors. Factor 1 (Technical Capability) and Factor 2 (Past Performance) are of equal importance. When combined, the non-price factors (Factors 1 and 2) are significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price).

Because Technical Capability and Past Performance are of equal importance, the Government is willing to pay a premium for a proposal that offers both an outstanding technical approach (minimizing transition and staffing risks) and a high level of performance confidence based on past performance history. As competing proposals become more equal in technical merit and past performance confidence, the relative importance of Factor 3 (Price) will increase.

1.4. Award Without Discussions: The Government reserves the right to award a contract based on initial proposals without conducting discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines they are necessary.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following factors will be used to evaluate offers. Factor 1 and Factor 2 are of equal importance, and both are significantly more important than Factor 3:

• Factor 1: Technical Capability

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Factor 3: Price

(Note: Volume I – Administrative will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis for completeness, compliance with solicitation instructions, and successful submission of all required representations, certifications, and organizational conflict of interest statements.)

3. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY EVALUATION

3.1. Technical Evaluation Approach: The Technical Capability factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed approach to satisfying the requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government will conduct a comprehensive review of the offeror's understanding of the work, the operational feasibility of their approach, and the robust mitigation of performance risks. Evaluators will assess whether the proposal provides convincing rationale, methods, processes, and procedures to address PWS requirements, rather than simply rephrasing or restating the Government's requirements.

3.2. Detailed Subpart Evaluation Criteria: The Government will assess the offeror's responses to the following seven (7) subparts to determine the overall Technical Capability rating:

• 3.2.1. Subpart 1 - Technical Approach: The Government will evaluate the depth, feasibility, and clinical soundness of the offeror's narrative details and operational methods proposed to execute the tasks listed within PWS Section 1 and Section 5.

Specifically, the evaluation will assess:

o PWS Section 1: The viability of plans for facility cleanliness, coordination with clinic staff, security compliance, administrative oversight, and the delivery of general food service operations.

o PWS Section 5: The adequacy of systems governing meal preparation, therapeutic diet compliance, patient tray services, bulk nourishment inventory, dining facility operations, cash collection management, and sanitation routines.

o Substantiation: The extent to which the offeror moves beyond simple restatements of PWS tasks to provide clear, convincing, and logical evidence that proves they can operate modern food services across all proposed designated Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs).

• 3.2.2. Subpart 2 - Transition Plan: The Government will evaluate the realism, efficiency, and risk-mitigation value of the proposed transition timeline in accordance with PWS Section 1.16. The evaluation will focus on:

o Schedule Realism: The feasibility of the milestones proposed during the transition window to ensure full, uninterrupted operational performance on the contract start date.

o Workload and Operations Transfer: The soundness of the transition methodology to absorb current workloads and seamlessly interface with departing personnel.

o Pre-Performance Training: The effectiveness of the training plan designed for implementation during transition to ensure a minimum of 90% of the workforce is fully qualified, compliant, and ready to meet PWS Section 5.7.7 requirements upon day one.

• 3.2.3. Subpart 3 - Corporate Experience and Management: The Government will evaluate the structure, communication methodology, and organizational depth of the offeror's management framework. Specifically, the evaluation will focus on:

o Organizational and Reporting Lines: The clarity and responsiveness of the proposed organizational chart, including the communication pathways between the on-site MTF personnel, the Government Points of Contact (POC/Alternative POC), and corporate headquarters.

o Subcontractor and Partner Management: The effectiveness of processes used to manage, monitor, and coordinate with subcontractors or teaming partners, including defined divisions of responsibility to prevent operational bottlenecks.

• 3.2.4. Subpart 4 - Staffing and Recruiting Plan: The Government will evaluate the offeror's staffing metrics and workforce strategies to ensure stable, qualified, and continuous food service operations at each MTF. The evaluation will assess:

o Staffing Sufficiency: The adequacy of the proposed labor categories, full-time equivalents (FTEs), and scheduling configurations to fulfill all critical MTF functions, including Therapeutic Diet Education, Patient Tray Service, Bulk Nourishments, Dining Room and Grab-and-Go Services, Cash Collection, and Cleanliness/Sanitation.

o Recruitment and Retention: The viability of the timeline to reach a 100% fill-rate by the start of full contract performance, and the strength of policies regarding background check processing, initial hiring, and compensation/incentives to minimize employee turnover.

o Cross-Utilization and Cross-Training: The logical soundness of the cross-utilization plan, detailing which positions are cross-utilized, how their experience enables fluid transitions, and how this strategy directly benefits the Government by preventing critical staffing gaps.

o Key and Management Qualifications: The relevance and depth of experience of all proposed on-site facility managers and key leaders to successfully execute their assigned duties within a clinical military setting.

• 3.2.5. Subpart 5 - Quality Control Plan (QCP): The Government will evaluate the robustness, adaptability, and proactive nature of the offeror’s quality control program based on PWS Exhibit A (Performance Requirements Summary). The evaluation will focus on:

o Inspection and Tracking Systems: The systematic nature of the inspection cycles and tracking methods to prevent and identify service deficiencies.

o Compliance with TB MED 530: The thoroughness of cleaning schedules and sanitization protocols, specifically assessing the integration of alternative procedures in accordance with the Tri-Service Food Code (TB MED 530).

o Corrective Actions and Complaint Management: The speed, clarity, and effectiveness of workflows used to implement corrective actions and resolve customer or clinical complaints via the proposed feedback loop.

o Record Keeping: The completeness of inspection logs and reports intended for

Government review.

• 3.2.6. Subpart 6 - Contingency Plan: The Government will evaluate the thoroughness of the procedures outlined in the Plan to maintain nutritional services without interruption during adverse conditions in accordance with PWS Section 1.21. The evaluation will focus on:

o Disruption Mitigation: The clarity of emergency protocols to handle sudden mobilizations, terrorist threats, natural disasters, severe utility outages, or labor disputes.

• 3.2.7. Subpart 7 - Therapeutic Diets Training Plan: The Government will evaluate the clinical safety, regulatory compliance, and accuracy of the patient dietary training program in accordance with PWS Section 5.1. The evaluation will focus on:

o Clinical Alignment: The integration of Registered Dietitian oversight and the use of evidenced-based training methodologies aligned with accredited organizations (such as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics).

o Tray Accuracy & Patient Identifiers: The effectiveness of proposed methods to verify meal tray accuracy against therapeutic diet orders, and the strict use of clinical patient identifiers during delivery.

o Precautionary and Restricted Wards: The safety, security, and situational appropriateness of delivery workflows developed for sensitive clinical areas, including behavioral health units, isolation wards, and other high-precaution rooms.

3.3. The Technical Capability factor will receive a single, combined Technical/Risk rating in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures. Individual subparts (3.2.1 through 3.2.7) will not receive separate adjectival ratings; instead, they will be evaluated collectively to arrive at the single composite rating below. This rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or exceeds the minimum performance or capability requirements and assesses the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

4. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

4.1. Past Performance Evaluation Approach: The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to supply the services based on a demonstrated record of performance. The evaluation will consist of three aspects: Recency, Relevance, and Performance Quality, resulting in a single Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

4.2. Recency: The Government will evaluate whether the submitted past performance references (and those obtained from CPARS or other sources) are recent. To be considered recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been completed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

4.3. Relevance: The Government will determine how relevant a recent effort is to the solicitation's requirements regarding scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities.

• Very Relevant: Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires, to include multiple locations if an offeror is proposing on more than one (1) location.

• Relevant: Past/present performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

• Somewhat Relevant: Past/present performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

• Not Relevant: Past/present performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.4. Performance Confidence Assessment: Based on the recency, relevance, and quality of performance, the Government will assign a Performance Confidence Assessment rating. If an offeror lacks a record of relevant past performance, they will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably and will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

Adjectival 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.

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.

5. FACTOR 3: PRICE EVALUATION

5.1. Price Evaluation Approach: Price is not rated with an adjectival rating but will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing.

5.2. Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submission to ensure that all required Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs for all locations, labor categories, and periods are priced and that the submission complies with Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) and Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) as outlined in the solicitation.

5.3. Reasonableness: Proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Price reasonableness will be determined primarily through adequate price competition. The Government may also use other price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b).

5.4. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will evaluate proposals for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes to determine the lowest evaluated price. The TEP will be calculated by summing the prices of the Base Period, all Option Periods, the Transition Period (if separately priced), and a six-month extension period.

• Evaluation of Options (FAR 52.217-8): The Government will evaluate its option to extend services by adding six (6) months of the offeror's final option period price to the offeror's total price. Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

6. SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN EVALUATION (TENTATIVE

AWARDEE ONLY)

6.1. Requirement and Applicability: In accordance with FAR 19.702(a)(1) and DFARS 219.7, any apparent successful offeror (tentative awardee) that is determined to be other than a small business (i.e., a large business) must submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that is acceptable to the Contracting Officer. This plan is not required from offerors who are certified small businesses or State Licensing Agencies.

6.2. Evaluation Method: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is evaluated on an Acceptable / Unacceptable basis prior to full contract performance. It will only be evaluated for the apparent successful offeror (tentative awardee) and does not receive an adjectival rating under the competitive source selection factors.

• Acceptable: The plan meets all requirements of FAR 19.704, DFARS 219.704, and contains realistic, aggressive goals for utilizing small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small businesses, HUBZone small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses.

• Unacceptable: The plan fails to meet the statutory requirements of FAR 19.704, or the proposed subcontracting goals are determined by the Contracting Officer to be unrealistic or unsubstantiated.

6.3. Condition of Award: An apparently successful large business offeror must have an approved, acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be eligible for contract award. Failure to submit an acceptable plan within the time limit prescribed by the Contracting Officer will make the offeror ineligible for award.

End of Addendum 52.212-2