N4019219R9201-AMD3.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

Solicitation No. N40192-19-R-9201 GALLEY SERVICES FOR U.S. NAVAL HOSPITAL,GUAM, MARIANAS ISLANDS (M.I.)

See Continuation Page 2.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Sep-2019

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 N4019219R9201

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

23-Aug-2019

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 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

16-Sep-2019

CODE

COMMANDING OFFICER - NAVFAC MARIANAS

FSC

PSC 455, BOX 195

FPO AP 96540-2937

N40192 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N4019219R9201

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0003

A. In accordance with FAR 52.252-3 Alterations in Solicitation (APR 1984), portions of this solicitation are altered as follows:

1. RFP Section A.2 CONTRACT TYPE is revised to reflect the applicability of the Randolph Sheppard

Act (RSA) to this solicitation.

RFP Section A.2 CONTRACT TYPE is replaced in its entirety. Refer to modified section in subsequent pages of this Amendment 0003.

2. RFP Section M.1 EVALUATION is revised to reflect the applicability of the RSA to this solicitation.

RFP Section M.1 EVALUATION is replaced in its entirety. Refer to modified section in subsequent pages of this Amendment 0003.

B. Notice 4 is provided in response to a Request for Information, Enclosure (1). The Notice is provided for

INFORMATION ONLY. The solicitation remains unchanged unless it is amended in writing.

C. The proposal due date remains as 23 September 2019 at 03:00 PM Chamorro Standard Time (ChST)/Local Time.

D. Offerors shall acknowledge this amendment in Block 14 of the Standard Form 33 with their proposals.

End of Amendment 0003.

The following have been deleted:

AMENDMENT 0002

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

SECTION A

A.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF GALLEY SERVICES CONTRACT

This is a follow-on acquisition for services that are currently being satisfied under Contract N40192-15-D-9016 for Galley Services for U.S. Naval Hospital, Guam, Marianas Islands (M.I.).

A.2 CONTRACT TYPE

This acquisition will be solicited and competed exclusively by as a Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Set- Aside procurement and the State Licensing Authority (SLA) under the Randolph Sheppard Act (20 U.S.C. §107, et.

seq.). Proposals by other contractors will not be considered. This acquisition will result in a single Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with recurring and non-recurring work. The term “recurring work” refers to the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) portion of the contract, while “non-recurring work” refers to the IDIQ portion of the contract.

A.3 NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE

The NAICS code is 722310 Food Service Contractors. The size standard associated with NAICS 722310 is $41.5 million. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing food services at institutional, governmental, commercial, or industrial locations of others based on contractual arrangements with these type of organizations for a specified period of time. The establishments of this industry provide food services for the convenience of the contracting organization or the contracting organization's customers. The contractual arrangement of these establishments with contracting organizations may vary from type of facility operated (e.g., cafeteria, restaurant, fast-food eating place), revenue sharing, cost structure, to providing personnel. Management staff is always provided by the food service contractors.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

M.1 EVALUATION

a. BASIS FOR AWARD

(1) 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 are the same for all competing Offerors, including the responsible SLA. The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e. lowest priced technically acceptable) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to price and the non-price factors.

(2) (1) The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with Offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the Offeror submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable offer.

(3) (2) As stated in the solicitation, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The number of proposals to be evaluated for technical acceptability may be limited to the lowest priced offer at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. If the number of proposals to be evaluated is limited, the technical proposal shall be provided to the evaluator(s) without any identification of price. If the lowest priced proposal is not found to be technically acceptable then the next lowest price proposal shall be evaluated. If that proposal is also not found to be technically acceptable, then the process described will be conducted again as many times as necessary, until such time as the Government identifies a technically acceptable proposal. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

The Government also reserves the right to reduce the number of proposals considered for award on the basis of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c), but a proposal from an SLA shall not be eliminated prior to a technical evaluation. If the proposal of an SLA is determined to be in the competitive range based on all evaluation factors, it will be deemed the presumptive awardee of the contract, conditioned on successful discussions, negotiations, and the resolution of any technical adjustments to the proposal to ensure the service of food of a high quality provided to eligible Government personnel and hospital patients and also subject to the negotiation and establishment of a final price deemed by the source selection authority advantageous to the Government as well as fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.402 and 34 C.F.R. §395.33. If such matters cannot be resolved, the SLA will be removed from the competitive range and discussions will commence with all remaining Offerors in the competition.

(4) (3) The LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

(5) (4) An overall non-price factors rating must be at least “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be eligible for award. An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor results in the overall non-price factors proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An overall non-price factors rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” makes a proposal ineligible for award.

b. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-price factors:

Factor 1 – Offeror Experience Factor 2 – Technical Approach Factor 3 – Management Plan/Quality Control Factor 4 – Safety Factor 5 – Past Performance

The distinction between Offeror experience and past performance is Offeror experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

c. BASIS OF EVALUATION FOR EACH FACTOR

(1) Price Evaluation Factor:

The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the basic requirements and all option items (see Section B of the solicitation). The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in Section M of the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

(iii) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

(iv) Comparison of market survey results.

Pricing Discrepancies In the event there is a difference between a unit price and the extended total amount, the unit price will be the intended offer and the total of the CLINs or ELINs will be recomputed accordingly. The CLIN which includes the recomputed contract ELINs, will also be recomputed to take into account the change in the contract ELINs. If the Offeror provides a total amount for a CLIN or ELIN but fails to enter the unit price, the total amount divided by the CLIN or ELIN quantity will be held to be the intended unit price.

(2) Non-cost/price Factors:

(i) Factor 1, Offeror Experience:

The Government will focus on whether the Offeror demonstrates extensive experience in recent, relevant galley services projects. The Offeror’s experience demonstrates a strong ability to manage galley service projects, with little to no risk of achieving solicitation requirements. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as referred to in Annex 1300000 – Galley, under Performance Work Statement (PWS) Spec Item 3 (Recurring Work) and incidental related work.

As previously stated, recency of the evaluated project will also be considered. For purpose of evaluation, recent is considered to be a project within the past five (5) years and relevancy is based on similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming effort required, if any.

Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) projects will not be considered.

(ii) Factor 2, Technical Approach:

The Government will focus on whether the Offeror has proposed an adequate and workable plan, methods, procedures and resources to accomplish the requirements of the project and that the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the potential, relevant risks to be encountered during contract performance, as well as an approach/contingency plan to effectively mitigate risks across all annexes and sub-annexes.

(iii) Factor 3, Management Plan/Quality Control:

The Government will evaluate the management and quality approach considering the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements of the project.

The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s project management plan and structure for performance, and the ability to utilize such objectives to successfully meet the galley services requirements of this contract.

The Government will evaluate whether key personnel proposed meet or exceed the stated minimum requirements in terms of experience, education, and training and that the Offeror’s succession plan demonstrates a plan to address personnel shortfalls and a process to recruit and retain qualified personnel.

The Government will evaluate whether the quality control measures are appropriate to successfully perform the PWS requirements, as well as the effectiveness of the Offeror’s plan for management of subcontracted efforts.

Failure to address all submittal components will result in an unacceptable rating.

(iv) Factor 4, Safety:

The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

- OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total

Recordable Case (TRC) Rates

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): For the three previous complete calendar years (2016, 2017, and 2018) the Offeror will submit EMR. If no EMR exists, the Offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate explaining why not. If an insurance company-provided equivalent rate is provided, it will be treated the same as an EMR. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and negative trends should be addressed as part of this selection factor. The Government will evaluate the EMR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates: For the three previous complete calendar years (2016, 2017, and 2018), the Offeror will submit their OSHA DART and TRC, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If unable to submit OSHA DART and TRC rates, affirmatively state so, and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART and TRC rate data and negative trends should be addressed as part of this element. The Government will evaluate the OSHA DART and TRC rates to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact rates.

(3) Technical Approach to Safety: The Offeror will describe their plan to evaluate their safety performance and that of potential subcontractors. Also, describe any innovative methods that the Offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at all subcontractor levels. The Safety Narrative shall be limited to two pages. The board will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project. The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement and validate the contractor has addressed methodology to be used in the execution of an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques/processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps. Those Offerors whose plan demonstrates a commitment to hire subcontractors with a culture of safety and who propose innovative methods to enhance a safe working environment may be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(4) Other Sources of Information Available to the Government: Other sources for safety may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS) in Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other related databases.

(v) Factor 5, Past Performance:

The degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering:

- A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

- A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

- A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.); and

- Recency of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand.

d. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS/DESCRIPTIONS

(1) The following adjectival ratings and rating descriptions will be used to assign a rating to each non-cost/price factor.

Table 1. Non-Cost/Price Factor Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable (A) Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable (U)

Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

(2) PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in the following table:

Table 2. Past Performance Evaluation Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable (A) Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable (U) Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have reasonable 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 or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

M.2 Enforceability of Proposal

The proposal must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by the solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of a contract. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (e.g., key personnel, subcontractors, approach, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions shall require prior Contracting Officer’s approval.

(End of Summary of Changes)