QandA_amendment1SF30.pdf

0012002918-0001

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

Answ ers all questions provided by Contractor Requests for Information prior to the close out date for the question-and-answ er period ending 2 January 2024, provides for the update of applicable Wage Determination to WD 1995-0122 version 64 published 26 December 2023, and provides additional Randolph Sheppard Act (RSA) clarifying language as a result of GAO Decision B-421890 dated November 2, 2023, to FAR Clause 52.212-1 at paragraph 1.7. Amend due date from 15 January to 16 January 2024 0700hrs

CST.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Jan-2024

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 W912JF24R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

15-Dec-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 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

04-Jan-2024

CODE

USP&FO FOR ARKANSAS

ATTN:MARK C. WHITE

DPFO-PC

NORTH LITTLE ROCK AR 72199-9600

W912JF 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

X 1

W912JF24R0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 01 is the Performance Work Statement (PWS)

2. Attachment 02 is Wage Determination (WD 1995-0122 REV. 64 dated 12/26/2023)

3. Attachment 03 is Government Furnished Property (GFP) listing

4. Attachment 04 is Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

5. Q&A Document

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV 2021)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Technical capability and past performance are eqaul in importance.

Technica capability and past performance when combined are more important than price.

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

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2, EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1.0 RANDOLPH-SHEPPARD ACT CONSIDERATIONS:

1.1 This procurement will be conducted pursuant to the Randolph-Sheppard Act (R-SA), 20 U.S.C. 107 § Operation of Vending Facilities and 34 CFR § 395.33 Operation of Cafeterias by Blind which establishes priority for blind persons recognized and represented by the State Licensing Agency (SLA), in the award of contracts for the operation of cafeterias on federal facilities. Accordingly, although the solicitation is set-aside 100% for small business, the State Licensing Agency will also be permitted to submit a proposal in accordance with 34 CFR § 395.33(b).

1.2 The Government will award a single contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered or to the SLA under the R-SA priority pursuant to the procedures outlined below in the provision.

1.3 If the SLA’s proposal was found to be technically acceptable with acceptable past performance and the SLA demonstrates through its proposal that it can provide such an operation at a fair and reasonable price as determined by the Government (2) has been judged to have a reasonable chance of being selected for award pursuant to the source selection criteria, and (3) provide food of high quality comparable to what is currently provided to service members, then priority/award will be given/made to the SLA subject to a determination of contractor responsibility and consultation with the Secretary of Education (IAW 34.CFR § 395.33(b)).

1.4 If the SLA proposal does not meet all criteria listed in the RFP and in paragraph (1.3) above, the SLA priority will not apply and award will be made to the best value offeror, as outlined in section 2, “evaluation factors for award,” of this provision, subject to a determination of contractor responsibility. If the SLA is dissatisfied with an action taken relative to its proposal, it may file a complaint with the Secretary of Education under the provisions of 34 CFR § 395.37.

1.5 If the contracting officer determines that a proposal should be excluded, the contracting officer will provide written notice of the exclusion to that offeror. If the SLA’s proposal is excluded, the SLA may file a complaint with the Secretary of Education under the provisions of

34 CFR § 395.37.

1.6 The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Price/Cost. Award will be made to a single offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the best value, price and other factors considered. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority will consider the evaluation results of the Source Selection Evaluation Board but will arrive at an independent decision and selection of the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the government.

The evaluation of Technical and Past Performance evaluation factors will be integrated with Price. The Technical factor and Past Performance factor are of equal importance. When combined, the technical factor and Past Performance factor are more important than the Price Factor. The award price must be determined to be reasonable and complete. In addition, the Government will analyze the offeror’s prices, to determine if prices are unbalanced. The Government will consider the risk of unbalanced pricing. Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating or score. The government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest price received. The government also reserves the right to award to other than the highest technically rated offeror even if the offeror's proposed price is not the lowest price received. To be eligible for award an offeror must receive ratings of: ACCEPTABLE or better under the technical factor;

a rating of at least SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE under the Past Performance factor and the cost/price proposal must also be found to be REASONABLE & COMPLETE. It is the government’s intent to award without discussions. NOTE: WHEN COMBINED, ALL NON-

PRICED FACTORS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN COST/PRICE.

1.7 IAW GAO Decision B-421890 dated November 2, 2023:

Pursuant to the RSA, the agency will make award to the SLA, even if the SLA’s quotation does not represent the best value, if there is a determination that the requirements in the RFQ can be provided by the SLA at a reasonable cost and with food service of a high quality comparable to that currently provided employees, students & conferees, whether by contract or otherwise.

The agency will apply the RSA priority only to the quotation submitted by the SLA from Arkansas, the state of contract performance.

Definitions:

Reasonableness. 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.

Completeness/Accuracy. The offeror’s proposal follows the Price Volume instructions in the solicitation.

Unbalanced Pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

Unrealistically low proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. Prosed prices will be reviewed to determine whether they are so low that they reflect a lack of technical understanding.

A. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor if the Technical, and Past Performance, evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

Factor 1: The Technical factor is further divided into the following sub-factors:

a. Sub-factor 1 – Organizational Structure Plan/Key Personnel Staffing

b. Sub-factor 2 – Management Plans

c. Sub-factor 3 – Experience

The sub-actors are equal in importance.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical sub-factor as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph B of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each Technical sub-factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 3: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be a firm-fixed price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm- Fixed Price effort.

B. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub-factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal 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 RFP.

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques.

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. The Technical factor is divided into the following sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1: This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Organizational Structure/Key Personnel Staffing for the basic contract period and all option years.

Marginal levels of overall Organizational Structure/Key Personnel Staffing could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

Organizational Structure

Chain of Command and lines of communication

Management techniques or procedures

Key Personnel Staffing

Sub-factor 2: This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s Management Plans. Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

Government Furnished Property

Contractor Furnished Property

Safety and Accident Prevention

Sub-factor 3: This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s Experience. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

Length of time offeror has been in business

Describe major customers

Monetary value of previous contracts

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

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

Purple 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.

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

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

Red 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.

Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake)

3. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in exhibit 9.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. For the purposes of this SSP/Requirement, major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform 20% percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal, questionnaires completed by the offeror’s references and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 722310 Food Service Contractors. The evaluation will also consider information provided relative to corrective actions taken to resolve problems on past or existing contracts.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past 3 years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

(i) RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

(ii) RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table

2) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(iii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

e. Performance Confidence Assessment: Utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 3 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

TABLE 3 - 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.

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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

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.

4. Cost/Price Factor. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors’ Cost/Price proposals.

The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate all priced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for award. For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated as follows.

a. FFP Evaluation. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the

Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The determination that a proposed price is reasonable is based on competitive quotation/offers. If the price is determined to be reasonable in comparison to the other offerors’ prices a “GO” rating will be given; if found to be unreasonable, a “NO GO” rating will be assigned to the price evaluation factor The Offeror’s proposed fixed-price CLINs may be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable. Unrealistically low proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. Prosed prices will be reviewed to determine whether they are so low that they reflect a lack of technical understanding. If found to be unrealistically low, a “NO-GO” rating will be given.

b. Overall Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

1) Compliance: The Cost/Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the 52.212-1 Addendum Instructions to offerors – Commercial Items.

2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in 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 (see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

3) Errors: The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

4) Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the Offeror’s proposed firm fixed- price (FFP) CLIN prices (CLIN 0001 through CLIN 4001).

To evaluate the option to extend services (FAR 52.217-8) CLINs, one-half of the probable cost for the last year of the performance period under CLIN 4001 through CLIN 4006 shall be added to the Total Evaluated Price.

Government Furnished Property: the contractor is responsible for all costs related to making the property available for use, such as payment of all transportation, installation, or rehabilitation.

Discounts: Prompt payment discounts will not be considered in the evaluation of offers.

C. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 10 calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions. The government intends to make award without discussions.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting

Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least 3 business days prior to their discussion session. Appropriate security clearances should be provided by the offerors in sufficient time to process the requests. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place at a facility of the Government’s choosing in the North Little Rock, Arkansas area.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)