W912PB20R3000-0001.pdf

0011348268

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

See Summary of Changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 5

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Dec-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 W912PB20R3000

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Nov-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 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

19-Dec-2019

CODE

RCO BAVARIA

AMERIKANISCHE BESCHAFFUNGSSTELLE

GEB 542

92655 GRAFENWOEHR LAGER

GERMANY

W912PB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912PB20R3000

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

-The required response date/time has changed from 23-Dec-2019 12:00 PM to 30-Dec-2019 10:00 AM.

-Changes have been made in the PWS at the following locations: 1.10.2 and 5.10.6. See updated PWS.

Questions and Answers:

1. In paragraph 5.10.6 of the PWS, the government states that the contractor will provide hand washing stations.

Can you please verify if this is an actual requirement since we did not see any contractor provided equipment during the site visit.

Answer: Section 5.10.6 has been changed. See attached PWS.

2. In the Solicitation under the clin listings, the government requests pricing for 350, 550, 850, and 1250 Meals per day respective of the clin. We would like to know if that is a total of meals prepared for the day, or does the government mean that we should provide breakfast, lunch and dinner to the quantity requested with would total 3 times the requested meals per day. i.e for clin 0001, the government is requesting 350 meals per day. We believe that the government means 3 meals per day for 350 personnel with would total 1400 meals.

Ansewr: This is meals per day not dependent on which meal of the day it is. 1250 means 1250 additional meals per day total – not per serving session (i.e. breakfast, lunch or dinner). Likewise with 350 the total would be 350 not 1400 meals. These CLINs are designed to augment CLIN 0001 as total headcounts fluctuate.

3. Can we provide a 40-hour Sanitation Certification from an European Accredited certifier?

Answer: No, certification has been removed as an evaluation factor. Certification is still be required, but will be offered by the US government after contract award. Contractor will be required to pay travel costs if certification class is offered at a location in Germany (i.e. Wiesbaden) other than the DFAC location.

4. Can we provide a Food Handler Certification from an European Accredited certifier?

Answer: No, certification has been removed as an evaluation factor. Certification is still be required, but will be offered by the US government after contract award. Contractor will be required to pay travel costs if certification class is offered at a location in Germany (i.e. Wiesbaden) other than the DFAC location.

The following FAR Clause is changed:

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation using an LPTA evaluation approach in accordance with FAR Part 15. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1. Technical

2. Past Performance

3. Price

The award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal. Proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability (including past performance), but will not be ranked using the non-price Factors. In order for an Offeror to be considered for award, the proposal must receive an “Acceptable” rating in every non-price Factor.

In order to be determined “Acceptable” in the Technical factor, the proposal must receive an “Acceptable” rating for each of its factors: Experience and Past Performance.

Factor 1: Technical

Experience

The Experience factor will be rated on an “Acceptable” / “Unacceptable” basis. The following definitions will be used in evaluating the Offeror’s proposal against the technical requirement for experience.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The offeror will be evaluated on whether the proposal demonstrates the Dining Facility Manager and Alternate meet the following experience requirements:

Three (3) years’ experience as an assistant manager, or manager, of a United States Army DFAC or at least eight (8) years of progressive management, or assistant management, experience working in a food service operation providing complete meal service (breakfast, lunch and dinner) in either a cafeteria style, or multi-entree operation, setting. Military food service experience in the pay grade of E-7 or above may be credited as management experience for this position.

Two (2) years experience using automated food management systems within the past five (5) years.

Factor 2: Past Performance

The past performance factor will be rated on an Acceptable / Unacceptable basis. The following definitions will be used in evaluating the degree the Offeror will satisfactorily provide the required services based on experience relevant in scope. An Acceptable or Unacceptable rating will be determined as follows:

Acceptable 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 notes).

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

**NOTE: Offerors may use the same contracts for Factors 1 and 2 however; these are two distinct criteria and will be evaluated separately.

***NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant in scope 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 "NEUTRAL" past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “NEUTRAL” shall be considered “acceptable.”

a. Past Performance Information: The information presented in the Past Performance References and information obtained from other available sources other than those identified by the Offeror (such as past performance information obtained from Federal, State and local Government agencies, better business bureaus, published media, and electronic data bases available to the Government) will be the basis for evaluation of this factor.

b. Past Performance Evaluation: The Government will consider the Offeror’s previous and current record of contractual performance. The Government assessment will focus on recent contracts that are relevant in scope to the effort required by this solicitation. Recent is defined for this action to be contracts that were performed within the last five (5) calendar years from the issuance date of the Request for Proposals (RFP).

Relevant contracts include individual contracts that are similar in scope, in whole or in part, to this solicitation.

c. The Government may reject a proposal if it is found that any information that has a negative impact on the Offeror’s past performance record has been deleted, misrepresented, or withheld.

d. It is at the Government’s discretion to determine whether past performance information furnished is or is not considered similar to the size and scope of the present requirement. Should the Offeror have no past performance information the Government will assign a rating of “Acceptable.”

e. Offerors are cautioned that, in conducting the past performance assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror's proposal and data obtained from other sources. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offerors to explain the relevance of the data provided by submitting a brief description of the past performance relevance with their proposal. Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of proving an “acceptable” past performance rests with the Offerors.

f. Offerors may provide information on problems encountered on the contracts identified in their past performance submissions and the Offerors’ corrective actions (FAR 15.305).

Factor 3: Price

a. Price will not be scored or rated. For evaluation purposes, the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in the following way. The offered Unit Price for each CLIN will be multiplied by the Estimated Quantity to produce a total Estimated CLIN Amount. To account for the option period(s) possible under Clause 52.217-8 (maximum six months), Option to Extend Services, the Government will take the total Estimated CLIN Amount for all CLINS of the final option period, prorate it to a six-month value, and add it to the sum of all total Estimate CLIN Amounts (base plus all option periods). This amount will be the Total Evaluated Price. 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).

b. Currency: Offers submitted in response to this solicitation shall be in terms of local currency or U.S.

Dollars. For evaluation purposes, the Government shall use the current FY Budget Rate to convert the local currency (i.e. Euro € = 0.8587 ) offers into U.S. Dollars.

In the event an offer is received in a currency other than Euro (€), and there is no official Budget Rate, the Government shall use the daily exchange rate on the solicitation closing date to convert the currency into U.S. Dollar for evaluation purposes. Conversion Rate will be pulled from www.XE.com.

c. Each Offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated to determine whether it is fair and reasonable.

Unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. The government will evaluate proposed price using one or more of the price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404.

d. The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis of prices considered to be unrealistically low. The Government may consider offeror(s) understanding of the items or ability to deliver the items in this analysis and risk assessment. An unrealistically low price may result in the offeror’s proposed price rejected and ineligible for award.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)