77344426R0005 Addendum Updated 5.20.2026.pdf

DFC.023 EVALUATION FACTORS

DFC.023 ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 & 52.212-2

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

This addendum serves to add, modify, or clarify instructions in FAR 52.212-1 as well as provide information related to evaluation factors.

NOTICE OF INDUSTRY DAY: DFC will host an industry day for interested parties on April 30, 2026 at 2:00pm Eastern time via Microsoft Team. To participate, please submit a list of each attendee's first name, last name and email address to melissa.hergenrader@dfc.gov and aaron.mckellum@dfc.gov by April 29, 4:00pm Eastern time.

A. SUBMITTAL: Offerors shall submit a quotes via email to melissa.hergenrader@dfc.gov and aaron.mckellum@dfc.gov no later than the offer due date/local time listed in Block 8 on page one of the SF1449. Local Time is Eastern Standard Time. Only electronic (e-mail) offers will be accepted. Offers submitted by any other method will not be accepted. Proposals received after the offer due date/local time will be late and will not be considered for award. Files larger than 20MB may need to be transmitted in separate emails. All emails, regardless of size, need to be received by the Government server, by the stated submission deadline. It is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure receipt of all documents by the deadline given. The Government will not be responsible for any failure of transmission or receipt of the proposal, or any failure of the Offeror to verify receipt of the emailed proposal. Proposals shall be singled spaced and in Times New Roman 10 font.

B. If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer (CO) in writing with supporting rationale. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this contract(s) based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

C. QUESTIONS: Questions shall be submitted via e-mail to melissa.hergenrader@dfc.gov and aaron.mckellum@dfc.gov not later than 2:00pm EST three (3) business days after the industry day. Offerors shall submit all questions on one email. Telephonic inquiries will not be entertained. Offerors are responsible for confirming receipt of questions. Answers to vendor questions will be posted to beta.SAM.gov.

D. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: Contract documents shall not exceed two (2) pages. The Offeror shall submit the following:

1. Offeror Name

2. Physical address

3. DUNS number

4. CAGE code if applicable

5. List of any Small Business Program designations

6. Point of contact with phone number and email address

7. Statement that the Offeror agrees to hold the offer firm for 180 calendar days after the proposal closing date.

8. Statement that the Offeror is has an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) with the appropriate NAICS Code, does not have any Active Exclusions, and that entity representations and certificates are current, complete, and accurate as of the date proposals are due.

9. Page 1 of the SF1449: Offeror shall fill in blocks 12, 17a, 30b and 30c. Block 30a must be signed: Electronic signature is acceptable. Do not include the entire SF 1449.

10. Any exceptions to the terms of this solicitation shall be clearly outlined and may preclude the offeror from an award.

E. PRICE: Offerors shall submit fully burdened rates using the excel spreadsheet provided.

The government has populated the number of hours for each year and labor category. These are used soley for the purposes of price evaluation and are not estimates or actuals. The fully burdened rates will be incorporated into the contract as ceiling rates for each year. The offeror shall submit a price narrative explaining the pricing approach for future task orders and any other pricing explanations worth noting. The price narrative shall not exceed one (1) page.

F. PAST PERFORMANCE: Offerors are encouraged to submit up to five (5) narratives detailing past performance and (if feasible) sample documents such as “reports” to convey capabilities. Narratives are not limited to report type documents but should consider (if feasible) providing written work that conveys technical strength and capabilities to the task(s) required.

Past Performance shall be relevant and recent (within the last 5 years). Offerors may submit up to three (3) past performance records for up to three (3) subcontractors. Past Performance shall not exceed five (5) pages. At a minimum, each Past Performance record shall include contract value, duration, scope, client name, and performance outcome.

G. TECHNICAL: Technical shall not exceed thirty (30) pages. Major subcontractors and/or teaming partners, and level of effort to be performed by such, shall be identified. The Offeror shall submit the following:

1. Technical Approach and Understanding

• Understanding of DFC Environmental and Social Policy and Procedures (ESPP) and IFC Performance Standards

• Methodology for screening, due diligence, monitoring, and gap analysis

• Task order management and surge capacity to support multiple projects

2. Relevant Corporate Experience •, Experience supporting DFIs and/or MDBs

• Sector experience relevant to DFC portfolio (energy, critical minerals, infrastructure, FI, agriculture, telecoms, maritime, pharmaceutical)

• Broad geographical experience across the countries DFC operates in

3. Key Personnel and Subject Matter Expertise

• Key Personnel referenced in H.4. for contract management.

• Senior E&S specialists with DFI due diligence and monitoring experience

• Availability of thematic subject matter experts (biodiversity, resettlement, labor, Indigenous Peoples)

• Staffing depth and flexibility for multiple task orders

4. Quality Assurance and Management Evaluation should assess internal quality control systems, peer review procedures, and ability to ensure consistent high-quality technical outputs.

5. Task Scenario for Proposal Evaluation The purpose of the Example Task is to assess the applicant's practical ability to analyze environmental and social risks and apply the IFC Performance Standards in a DFI investment context.

Example Task Scenario DFC is considering providing financing for a lithium mining project with an associated 15Km transmission line in a developing country. The project site is located near a known migratory bird flyway and within a landscape that may contain critical habitat for several protected species.

A few local groups have raised concerns about potential social impacting, including impacts on

Indigenous Peoples, due to the project location. It is expected that the current transmission line route may intersect areas containing archaeological artifacts.

The project sponsor has submitted the following documentation:

· Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA)

· Biodiversity baseline study

· Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS)

· Stakeholder Engagement Plan

· Preliminary Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) Offerors shall provide a brief technical memorandum (5–8 pages recommended) that addresses the following:

1. Assess the project against DFC’s ESPP Categorical Prohibitions.

2. Identify key environmental and social risks associated with the project.

3. Identify potential gaps between the documentation provided and IFC Performance Standards requirements.

4. Describe the due diligence steps you undertake to evaluate compliance with Applicable Standards (IFC Performance Standards, DFC’s ESPP, and relevant World Bank EHS Guidelines).

5. Identify potential corrective actions or Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP) items that may be required prior to financial close.

6. Describe what additional studies or monitoring measures may be necessary.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

This addendum serves to add, modify, or clarify instructions in FAR 52.212-2 as well as provide information related to evaluation.

A. AWARD DECISION: The Government will award a single Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: Price, Past Performance, and Technical. Awards will be made to the Offerors whose proposals are evaluated, by an integrated assessment of price/cost and non-price evaluation factors, to provide the best value to the Government.

B. COMMUNICATIONS: The Government reserves the right to make an award without discussions based solely upon initial proposals based solely upon initial proposals. Clarifications and communication exchanges may be conducted after receipt of proposals. These do not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. Therefore, offerors shall ensure that their initial proposal constitutes their best offer in terms of the technical solution being proposed.

C. EVALUATION: The Government will utilize the information requested in the “Instructions to Offerors” and the below evaluation criteria.

D. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: To be considered responsive, all contractual items shall be submitted in accordance with the “Instructions to Offerors” and be complete, accurate, and acceptable by the Contracting Officer.

E. PRICE: Price analysis will be used to evaluate the proposed ceiling hourly rates and price narratives for reasonableness to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Price will not receive an adjectival rating. Annual escalation rates will be evaluated to determine balanced pricing for all potential periods of performance in task order awards. For the purposes of evaluation, the Government provided the estimated quantity of hours per year for each labor category to estimate an annual price per category and total per year.

F. PAST PERFORMANCE: The Government will evaluate Past Performance for scope, relevance, and recency (last 5 years). Past performance evaluation examines an Offeror’s relevant present and past performance record to determine the performance risk associated with each proposal and the degree of confidence for successful performance based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance on similar contracts or commercial engagements.

Past performance surveys may be conducted to verify past performance with Contracting Officers. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the evaluation, the Government reserves the right to obtain information using information sources not provided by the Offeror. Examples of this may include the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS), or other databases for evaluation and reserves the right to contact independent sources not provided by the offeror. Offerors with no recent or relevant past performance will result in assignment of a neutral rating, indicating neither a favorable nor unfavorable evaluation rating. The Government reserves the right to favor positive past performance ratings. The overall Confidence Ratings for the Past Performance Factor are listed below:

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. In this case, an offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably with regard to the past performance factor.

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.

G. TECHNICAL: The technical capability factor is comprised of the following subfactors and will result in the overall technical rating of the proposal.

· Technical Approach and Understanding

· Relevant Corporate Experience

· Key Personnel and Subject Matter Expertise

· Quality Assurance and Management

· Example Task Scenario

TECHNICAL RATING: The following adjectival ratings will be used to evaluate technical capability:

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

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.

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

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

Unacceptable – Proposal does not meet requirement of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is not awardable.

[End of Addendum]