Evaluation Criteria v2.pdf

BASIS OF AWARD

The basis for award will be based on FAR 13 using price and other factors as prescribed in FAR subpart 13.106-2. The government will evaluate quotes based on the following evaluation criteria: (1) technical capability w/sub-factors (2) Past Performance (3) Price. The quote that provides the best overall value taking into consideration all three factors will be awarded the contract. The Government intends to award without discussions.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

There are FOUR subfactors in this evaluation. A rating will be given for each subfactor and the overall technical quote. Each will be evaluated based on the criteria listed in Table 1 below.

Offerors must receive an overall rating no less than acceptable to be considered for award. The three subfactors are listed in order of importance. Quoters are cautioned that they must respond to all subfactors regardless of importance. Ratings follow the explanation of the technical rating process.

Adequacy of Response. The quote will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. The quote will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement of the solicitation has been addressed in accordance with the submission section of the solicitation. For the quote to be considered, it shall demonstrate a clear and knowledgeable understanding of the requirements.

Subfactor 1 – Capability Statement Subfactor 2 – One Month Menu Subfactor 3 – Experience/Credentials Subfactor 4 – Government Property Management Plan

1. Capability Statement: Provide a capability statement that addresses effective and efficient management to accomplish the requirements in the PWS. The ability to accurately invoice with multiple simultaneous task orders separately (contractor may have multiple task orders or GPC purchases performing simultaneously) and manage/track meal change requests should be included. Address functions, responsibilities and authorities for performing such duties as overall project manager, contract employees, and administrative support staff.

Given the labor challenges of the area a plan for hiring and maintaining staff should be included. Information should include the required security and training of staff to include (but not all inclusive) ServSafe (para. 1.4.7), OPSEC (para 1.4.5.5), AT (para 1.4.5.2), prevention of Sexual Assault/Harassment (para. 1.4.3.14). Quotes that restate the requirements or simply state they will meet the requirements shall not be rated as favorably as quotes that provide objective responses or answer “How” the requirements will be met.

2. One Month Menu: Menu shall meet all requirements of the PWS regarding nutrition, caloric values, and variety. Menu items, including a salad bar, shall consist of high quality and healthy sustenance. Meals shall provide for variance to avoid the appearance or assumption of “leftovers”. A special meal shall be included in addition to the one-month menu. The menu shall address healthier meal choices, various options, and meet various caloric requirements of customers. Meals that are prepared fresh (made from scratch), avoid pre-packaged, or pre-cooked meal items will be evaluated more favorably. Each menu will be reviewed by a Government expert(s) to provide analysis of the menus concerning nutrition and quality. This narrative or feedback will be provided to the Government evaluators in making their determination. Menus that include details concerning their ingredients that are considered healthier, (example high protein/low carb pasta versus white/refined pasta noodles, menus that offer quinoa, brown/black versus white rice) will increase their favorability for their technical evaluation.

3. Experience/Credentials: Provide resumes and credentials related to the requirements of the PWS. Provide evidence of certifications. Certification documentation (such as ServSafe) shall show individual/Company identification/and date certified.

4. Property Management Plan: Per AFARS PGI 5145.201(d) a Property Management Plan (PMP) must be approved prior to contract performance. Quotes shall include a draft PMP as part of their submission/quote. The PMP shall be tailored to the complexity, sensitivity, and value of the property proposed. At a minimum the PMP should include

Receipt: How the property will be received and recorded Reporting: How the property will be reported on Utilization: How the property will be used Inventory: How the property will be physically inventoried Maintenance: How the property will be maintained Closeout: How the property will be closed out

The PMP will be reviewed by the facility manager. They will then provide a narrative or feedback of each submitted PMP to the evaluation team.

Evaluation Criteria: technical ratings will be evaluated using the following criteria:

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Outstanding Quote meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Quote meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Quote contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Quote meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offset or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Quote does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The quote has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Quote does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very high.

PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance- Vendors with successful past performance in a similar requirement will be rated more favorable. References should be provided to provide independent analysis of contract performance. References should include pertinent contract information (dollar amount, location, agency/organization performed for, scope of work, prime/subcontractor on the project, current contact information of POC). Quoter is responsible to ensure that contact information (email/phone) are current and accurate. Contractors shall provide no more than three (3) pages detailing their experience. The vendor shall show how their experience relates to PWS. Note, this is regarding the contractors themselves NOT the employees who will be working on contract if for services.

Past performance information may be obtained from established systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and/or Fee Determining Officials.

Recent past performance is considered past performance that is within 5 years. Projects that are ongoing shall have had a minimum of 6 months or 10% progress to be considered for evaluation. The closer the project completion (unless ongoing) to the present day the more recent it will be considered for evaluation purposes.

Relevant past performance is considered contracts/projects/work that is similar in scope, dollar value, and complexity. A project that more closely matches the current requirement will be considered more relevant for evaluation purposes.

Evaluation Criteria: Past Performance will be evaluated using the following criteria:

TABLE 2 – Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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.

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.

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.

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. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown confidence (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

PRICE

All pricing must be provided for; this requirement will not be split. All vendors shall use the attached pricing table for quotes. Prices that are lower without being considered unrealistic will be evaluated more favorably.

Prices will be determined fair and reasonable IAW FAR 13.106-3(a). Pricing that is determined unrealistically low may be removed from contract award consideration. Failure to fill out all required information on the meal pricing sheet may result in removal for award consideration.

A total price evaluation will be determined by the following method.

1. multiplying the quoters price by 50 for ≤10 per meal service

2. multiplying the quoters price by 100 for 11-30 per meal service

3. multiplying the quoters price by 100 for 31-60 per meal service

4. multiplying the quoters price by 50 for ≥61 per meal service

5. The 6-month extension will use a quantity of half the amount, the quantity multiplier will be 25, 50, 50, and 25 for Fort Harrison Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner.

6. Sack lunches will follow the same format but use 4, 8, 8, 4 for years 1-5 and 2, 4, 4, 2 for the 6-month extension.

7. Warming/Cooling Beverages will use a quantity of 10 for years 1-5 and 5 for the 6-month extension.

8. “Delivery Fee to Helena Aviation Readiness Center-Round trip cost per delivery” will use a quantity of .5 for years 1-5 and .25 for the 6-month extension

9. “Delivery Fee to Limestone Hills-Round trip cost per delivery” will use a quantity of 10 for years 1-5 and 5 for the 6-month extension.

10. The total amount calculated for all meals and requirements (breakfast, lunch, and dinner, special meals, sack lunches, delivery to Aviation and Limestone, and Warming/Cooling Beverages) will be used to evaluate price and as part of the overall determination of best value.

Price per contract year

1st year of award 2nd year of award

3rd year of award

4th year of award

5th year of award

6-month extension (if used)

Breakfast

≤10 per meal service $____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

11-30 per meal service $____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

31-60 per meal service $____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

≥61 per meal service $____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

Lunch

≤10 per meal service $____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

11-30 per meal service $____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

31-60 per meal service $____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

≥61 per meal service $____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

Dinner

≤10 per meal service $____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

11-30 per meal service $____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

31-60 per meal service $____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

≥61 per meal service $____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

Sack Lunches

≤10 per meal service $____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

11-30 per meal service $____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

31-60 per meal service $____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

≥61 per meal service

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

Warming/Cooling Beverages

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

Delivery Fee to Helena Aviation Readiness Center- Round trip cost per delivery

$____ x .5

$____ x .5

$____ x .5

$____ x .5

$____ x .5

$____ x .25

Delivery Fee to Limestone Hills- Round trip cost per delivery

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

$____ x

**In determining the price per meal charged on the task orders, the price will be the aggregate of all task orders, GPC purchases, external contracts awarded at the time of the meal service.

(Example: a task order is issued for 29 lunch meals. Simultaneously the active Air Force issues an external order for 18 meals and the Army Reserves uses their GPC to purchase 19 meals. The meal rate would be charged using the ≥60 since total meals served for the lunch meal would be 66.)

**In determining a price adjustment per FAR Clause 52.222-43 supporting documentation (historical pay role and misc. documents) shall be provided and a cost of labor percentage determined to adjust the per meal rate. The clause is intended to reflect an actual increase and not estimations. Given that the contract is not for direct labor and the increase would reflect on the per meal amount, the vendor shall provide sufficient evidence to support any increase being requested (see FAR Clause 52.222-43(f) timeline on submitting request).