Evaluation 52.212-2
Updated
A PDF document (158 KB) attached to Nutrition Care Services; Military Treatment Facilities - Forts Irwin, Leonard Wood, Riley, Stewart, and West Point, from the Defense Health Agency (DHA). Due Nov 4, 2026, 12:00 PM (UTC-6).
File name: HT940827RE003_Evaluation_52.212-2.pdf
The full file is for paid members, or buy this bid alone.
Preview
HT940827RE003 – NUTRITION CARE SERVICES
ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – EVALUATION OF OFFERS
1. BASIS FOR AWARD
1.1. Best Value Tradeoff: The Government intends to award Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract(s) to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal(s) conforms to the solicitation requirements and represents the best value to the Government. The Government will award contract(s) to the Offeror that presents the best value for each MTF The evaluation will be conducted utilizing a streamlined best-value tradeoff process in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures. 1.2. Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA) Priority: In accordance with the solicitation's instructions, the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 U.S.C. 107) applies to this acquisition. In the event that one or more RSA State Licensing Agencies (SLA) submits a proposal, the source selection will be carried out in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 107, 34 C.F.R. 395.33, and other relevant laws and regulations. If an SLA proposal is determined to be within the competitive range and has a reasonable chance of being selected for award, the SLA will receive priority as mandated by law. 1.3. Relative Importance of Factors: The Government will evaluate proposals based on three (3) evaluation factors. Factor 1 (Technical Capability) and Factor 2 (Past Performance) are of equal importance. When combined, the non-price factors (Factors 1 and 2) are significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price).
Because Technical Capability and Past Performance are of equal importance, the Government is willing to pay a premium for a proposal that offers both an outstanding technical approach (minimizing transition and staffing risks) and a high level of performance confidence based on past performance history. As competing proposals become more equal in technical merit and past performance confidence, the relative importance of Factor 3 (Price) will increase. 1.4. Award Without Discussions: The Government reserves the right to award a contract based on initial proposals without conducting discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines they are necessary.
2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD
The following factors will be used to evaluate offers. Factor 1 and Factor 2 are of equal
The beginning of the document. Download the full file to read on.
Other documents in this bid
- Attachment 1: Contractor Teaming Organization
- Attachment 4: Past Performance Questionnaire
- Attachment 5: Consent Letter
- Attachment 6: Client Authorization Letter
- Instructions 52.212-1
- Performance Work Statement Nutrition Care Food Services
- Technical Exhibit B Hours of Operation
- Technical Exhibit C Sample Menu
- Technical Exhibit D Key Employees
- Technical Exhibit E Property Book Inventory
- Technical Exhibit F MEMO Satisfaction Survey
- Technical Exhibit G Cash Control