Solicitation W81K00-23-Q-0092 Amendment 0003 _13 December 2023.pdf

W40M USA HCA

REGIONAL HEALTH CONTRACT OFF CENTRAL

POC: BRENDA FERJAK

1650 COCHRANE CIRCLE, BLDG7500

FORT CARSON CO 80913-4604

0011916741-0001

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

The purpose of this amendment is as follow s:

1. Incorporate revised FAR 52.212-2 Addendum-Evaluation Criteria

2. Extend the proposal due date to 04 January 2024 / 10:00 AM Mountain Time. Question period is not reopened.

3. Update the Quantities and Period of Performance for base period to 1 March to 30 September 2024. Option Periods are unchanged.

4. Provide Updated Solicitation Attachment 4-Pricing Worksheet, external attachment.

5. All offerors are authorized to submit revised offers in part or its entirety.

6. Revised compensation plans and price proposals are required.

All offerors shall acknow ledge this amendment and return w ith their offer.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 12-Dec-2023

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 W81K0023Q0092

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Jun-2023

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 X is extended, 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

13-Dec-2023

CODE

W40M USA HCA

MEDICAL READINESS CONTR OFFICE WEST

3160 MCINDOE BLDG 1103

JBSA FT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-4504

W81K00 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE W81K00

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W81K0023Q0092

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:

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 REVISED

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION CRITERIA Revised

Paragraph (a) is hereby replaced with the following:

(a) Offerors are hereby advised that the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 U.S.C. 107) applies to this solicitation. In addition to the evaluation criteria stated below, if the State Licensing Agency (SLA) submits a proposal, the source selection will be carried out in accordance with 20 U.S.C. § 107, 34 CFR § 395.33, and other relevant laws and regulations as applicable.

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation is the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered in accordance with FAR Parts 12 and 13, or to the SLA under the RSA priority as other than best value in accordance with 34 CFR § 395.33. Price shall be determined fair and reasonable by the Contracting Officer to eligible for award.

It is contemplated that award will be made without discussions with offerors (except communications conducted for the purpose of minor clarification). Therefore, each initial offer shall contain the offeror's best terms for past performance, compensation, and price. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. If the Government enters into discussions, a Competitive Range (CR) will be established based on the evaluated price and other evaluation factors included in the solicitation. The Government will limit the number of offers in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated offers.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) Factor 1 – Past Performance

(2) Factor 2 – Compensation Plan

(3) Factor 3 – Price

(4) Exception Factor 4 – Subcontracting Plan (SLA only) – refer to Exception Factor 4 evaluation

Award will be made using the Best-Value Tradeoff source selection process or to the SLA under the RSA priority as other than best value. The priority for award to the SLA is applied after the initial evaluation using the factors identified in the solicitation-refer to the Application of the SLA Priority section of this Addendum. Past Performance is significantly more important than Compensation Plans. When combined, Past Performance and Compensation Plans are more important than Price. However, Price could become the determining factor if the offers are determined to be essentially equal. SLA only: Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated for acceptance.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government evaluation process is as follows:

Step 1 – The Government will conduct a compliance review to determine if each Offeror met the submission requirements as outlined in Addendum to 52.212-1. Missing or incomplete submission requirements may make the offer non-compliant and ineligible for award.

The Government will verify Offeror’s small business status using the following:

(1) Offeror’s submitted FAR 52.219-1 SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM

REREPRESENTATIONS (MAR 2023) – ALTERNATE 1 (SEPT 2015)

(2) Offeror’s FAR 52.212-3 Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items at SAM.gov under

NAICS 722310

Step 2 – Evaluation Process - all proposals shall be evaluated using these criteria

FACTOR 1 – Past Performance, all previously submitted/received PPQs are acceptable.

The overall Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) 1 rating is based on an integrated assessment of the Offerors recent, relevant, and quality past performance (PPIs, PPQs, and information obtained from other sources available to the Government). The resulting PCA rating is determined at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent, relevant, and quality past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful 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 Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence rating than less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contract citations deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. A rating of at least Satisfactory Confidence or Neutral Confidence shall be obtained in order to be eligible for award. More relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. A “Substantial Confidence” rating of past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Satisfactory Confidence" rating.

Definitions

The following definitions will be utilized for the Performance Confidence Assessment determination:

(a) Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information contained in the Offeror’s submittals will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort shall be ongoing or shall have been performed within the past three (3) years from the closing date of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(b) Relevancy Assessment An assessment of the recent past performance information will be made to determine its relevancy. This information will be evaluated to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(c) Performance Quality Assessment After the determination of recency and relevancy, the Government will assess the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the Performance Confidence Assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, the Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Relevancy Ratings: The Government will use the following relevancy definitions/ratings when assessing relevant past performance:

Relevancy Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing the same or larger sized service team, providing the same services, in the same environment as the solicited requirement.)

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing a slightly smaller sized service team, providing similar services in a similar environment as the solicited requirement.)

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing a smaller service team, providing somewhat similar services in a similar environment as the solicited requirement.)

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing a considerably smaller sized team that did not encompass service, or where the scope, magnitude and complexities are dissimilar to the solicited requirement.)

Confidence Ratings: The Government will use the following definitions/ratings when making an overall Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA).

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Methods

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

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will

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

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will

No Confidence

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 2 – COMPENSATION PLAN

Compensation Plan: The elements of the plan will be evaluated to ensure that the proposed compensation is sufficient to attract and retain quality Food Service Personnel. This factor will be rated as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable”. Compensation plans for both specialties shall be “acceptable” to be considered for award.

Acceptable Rating – Based on Medical Readiness Contracting Office - West market research, the proposed compensation is sufficient to attract and retain quality Food Service Workers. The offeror’s proposed basic labor rates by labor category meets the minimum hourly rate delineated in the SCA WD.

Unacceptable Rating – Based on Medical Readiness Contracting Office - West market research, the proposed compensation is not sufficient to attract and retain quality Food Service Workers. The offeror’s proposed basic labor rates by labor category does not meet the minimum hourly rate delineated in the SCA WD.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE:

Offers will be evaluated for price reasonableness. The proposed price will be evaluated for the entire effort, inclusive of all options. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government may use various price analysis techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Some of those techniques are, but not limited to, comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation and/or comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Estimate. Price shall be determined fair and reasonable by the Contracting Officer to be eligible for award.

EXCEPTION FACTOR 4 - SUBCONTRCTING PLAN (SLA ONLY) Evaluation

Evaluation of the subcontracting plan will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances.

The subcontracting plan will be evaluated to determine if the plan is compliant with the requirements of 52.219-9 and DFARS Clause 252.219-7003 and a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be assigned. Failure to submit an “Acceptable” Subcontracting Plan will make the Offeror ineligible for award.

APPLICATION OF THE SLA PRIORITY PROCESS

RSA priority will be limited to the SLA from Colorado.

If the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are required, the Contracting Officer will first establish a Competitive Range (CR). Once a CR has been established, and if the proposal received from the SLA is judged to be within the CR and has been ranked among those proposals which have a reasonable chance of being selected for final award, the Contracting Officer will follow the procedures outlined in 34 CFR § 395.33(b) for award to the SLA.

If the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are not required, and the proposal received from the SLA is judged to be among those proposals which have a reasonable chance of being selected for final award, the Contracting Officer will follow the procedures outlined in 34 CFR § 395.33(b) for award to the

SLA.

If the SLA’s proposal does not meet all criterial listed in the solicitation or is excluded from the CR, the SLA priority will not apply and award will be made to the offeror who submits the proposal that offers the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered, subject to a determination of contractor responsibility. The Agency will consult with the Secretary of Education if it does not intend to award the contract to the SLA. If the SLA is dissatisfied with an action taken relative to its proposal, the SLA may file a complaint with the Secretary of Education under the provisions of 34 CFR § 395.37.

(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 a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) Given that FAR 52.217-8 provides that the Government may exercise the Option to Extend Services at the rates specified in the contract (i.e., the rates in effect when the Extension of Services option is exercised), for purposes of evaluating the Option to Extend Services, the Contracting Officer will consider the prices submitted for the base and all option periods, since those are the binding prices should the Option to Extend be exercised.

(d) The award decision to the Colorado SLA pursuant to the priority provided in the RSA will be as other than best value if the Government determines the requirements in the solicitation can be provided by the Colorado SLA at a reasonable cost and with food service of a high quality comparable to that currently provided employees, whether by contract or otherwise. An award decision to any offeror other than the Colorado SLA will be to the offeror that provides the best value to the Government and not solely on price and price related factors. In making the award decision, the Contracting Officer will consider the evaluated rating of all factors. Ratings of “unacceptable” will not be eligible for award.

(End of 52.212-2 Addendum)

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 15-Aug-2023 10:00 AM to 04-Jan-2024 10:00 AM.

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0001

The pricing detail quantity has decreased by 728.00 from 1,920.00 to 1,192.00.

CLIN 0002

The pricing detail quantity has decreased by 9,464.00 from 24,960.00 to 15,496.00.

DELIVERIES AND PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0001 has been changed from:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

POP 01-OCT-2023 TO

30-SEP-2024

N/A EVANS

EVANS ARMY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

1650 COCHRANE CIRCLE

FORT CARSON CO 80913

FOB: Destination

HT0787

To:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

POP 01-MAR-2024 TO

30-SEP-2024

N/A EVANS

EVANS ARMY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

1650 COCHRANE CIRCLE

FORT CARSON CO 80913

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0002 has been changed from:

CAGE

POP 01-OCT-2023 TO

30-SEP-2024

N/A EVANS

EVANS ARMY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

1650 COCHRANE CIRCLE

FORT CARSON CO 80913

To:

CAGE

POP 01-MAR-2024 TO

30-SEP-2024

N/A EVANS

EVANS ARMY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

1650 COCHRANE CIRCLE

FORT CARSON CO 80913

(End of Summary of Changes)