52-212-2 Formatted.pdf

52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (FEB 2026)

The following words “offer”, “offeror”, and “proposal” shall have the same meaning as “quotation”, “vendor”, and “quote”, respectively.

(a) Evaluation factors. 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 will be used to evaluate offers:

(1) PRICE

(2) TECHNICAL

Evaluation factors other than price when combined are equal to price.

(b) Options (if applicable). 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. The evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) Notice of award. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer 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.

Addenda to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (FEB 2026)

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: A contract will be awarded to the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable offer received in response to the solicitation. By submission of its proposal in accordance with the instructions provided in FAR 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors” the vendor accedes to the terms of this solicitation, and all such vendors shall be treated equally except for their prices, technical submissions, and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a proposal being determined non-responsive. Award will be made to the responsible vendor whose response conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the solicitation and is the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable Offer representing the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described herein.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Price Evaluation. Initially, offerors shall be ranked from lowest to highest according to the offeror’s proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP is determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the CLIN Schedule by the proposed unit price for CLINs and adding the totals for all CLINs. The Government will include the 6-month extension to the TEP as referenced in FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services. The 6-month extension will be priced based off the final year pricing (CLINs 4001 and 4002).

B. Technical Evaluation. Next, the Government will evaluate the technical submission, on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, submitted by the lowest TEP ranked offeror. The offeror’s technical submission will be rated ‘Acceptable’ or ‘Unacceptable’ as defined within the table provided below. If the lowest priced offeror is deemed to be acceptable, award will be made to this offeror and no other proposals will be evaluated. If the lowest priced offeror is deemed technically unacceptable, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

1. Subfactor 1: Experience

a. Description: The offeror must demonstrate their ability to complete the requisite work associated with the PWS through project/contract-based information provided by the offeror utilizing the Experience Sheet (Attachment 1).

b. Evaluation Criteria: An Acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s proposal meets or exceeds the minimum requirements. The minimum requirements will be met if the offeror demonstrates experience on one (1) project/contract which singularly meets all the criteria below:

1. Offeror was the prime contractor on the project.

2. Offeror meets the requirements of eligible contractor as defined in DFARS 226.7201.

3. Project/contract was completed no longer than five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

4. At the time of project/contract completion, the total value associated with the services provided was $18,000,000 or greater, is of a type similar in scope; magnitude/complexity; contract type; and contract environment when compared to the services described in this solicitation.

5. Project/contract demonstrates experience in facility support services (Materiel Management Operations (MMO)) of a multi-functional area facility or facilities that involved disciplines and trades at the same time.

If a proposal does not demonstrate experience on at least one project that singularly meets all the above criteria, then the proposal will be rated Unacceptable.

If any of the projects/contracts submitted (Prime or Major Subcontractor) were performed as teaming or joint venture partners, offerors must thoroughly explain the relationship of each partner (e.g. managing partner under the project/contract submitted) and the duties that each assumed on the submitted project/contract. The offeror shall relate duties to the PWS to include paragraph citations. The offeror shall also include copies of the teaming and/or joint venture agreement for these projects/contracts (Copies of the teaming and/or joint venture agreements will not count towards the page count of Volume II, Experience. Projects/Contracts submitted without this documentation (nature of relationship, duties performed (with PWS citations), and teaming/ and/or joint venture agreements) will not be evaluated.

2. Subfactor 2: Past Performance

a. Description: The past performance is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

b. Evaluation Criteria: First, the past performance will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. At a minimum, the offeror shall demonstrate overall satisfactory performance (to include a showing of adequate corrective action on adverse past performance information) on projects/contracts that are of a size and complexity similar to the requirements in the

PWS.

The past performance will be determined recent when the performance on a project/contract was completed no longer than five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation.

The past performance will be determined relevant for a project/contract when it has demonstrated that the project/contract has/had a total value associated with the services provided of $18,000,000 or greater, is of a type similar in scope; magnitude/complexity; contract type; and contract environment when compared to the services described in this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major/critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations.

Second, the past performance will be evaluated to determine how well the offeror performed on the prior projects/contracts. The Government will consider past performance information on the offeror based on (1) past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (Attachment 2 Past Performance Questionnaires); (2) past performance information obtained from the Contract Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS); and (3) any other relevant data independently obtained by the Government. If a reference identified by the offeror does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the Government will follow up with the reference POC but is not responsible for the failure of an offeror’s reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire.

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 (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered acceptable.

Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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 note above).

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.

3. Subfactor 3: Vendor Mission Essential Plan

a. Description: In accordance with DFARS 252.237-7024 Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services, an offeror shall provide with its offer a written plan describing how it will continue to perform essential contractor services during a crisis. See Provision details for additional plan submission requirements.

b. Evaluation Criteria: An Acceptable rating will be assigned if the offeror’s written plan successfully addresses the minimum requirements stated in DFARS 252.237-7024(b) for this subfactor.

Vendor Mission Essential Plan Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Mission Essential Plan successfully addresses the requirements stated in DFARS 252.237-7024(b).

Unacceptable Mission Essential Plan does not successfully address the requirements stated in DFARS 252.237-7024(b).

The offeror must be found Acceptable in all three Subfactors to be rated overall as Acceptable for Technical.

C. Vendor Responsibilities: Vendors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in 52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services. Vendors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute exchanges and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

D. Government Discretion Regarding Negotiations: The Government intends to award a contract without negotiations with respective vendors in accordance with FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct negotiations if deemed in the best interest of the Government. Negotiations may take place regarding any portion of the two proposal Volumes (Price and Technical). The Government may conduct negotiations with one, some, none, or all vendors at its discretion. Negotiations do not require a distinction between whether the negotiation results in a change to a proposal or only clarifies an administrative matter or proposal mistake. The Government has discretion to evaluate all proposal submissions before initiating negotiations with vendors (through Evaluation Notices or “ENs”), and vendors do not have to be offered an opportunity to revise their proposal through a Final Proposal Revision (FPR).

If, during the evaluation period, the Contracting Officer determines it to be in the best interest of the Government to hold negotiations, vendor responses to ENs and the FPR (if requested by the Government) will be considered in making the award decision. Note that in accordance with FAR 15, vendors do not have to be offered an opportunity to revise their proposal through a formal FPR. If the vendor’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time negotiations are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the vendor’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

(End Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services)