Atch6_Addendum_to_FAR_52.212-1_and-2_Solicitation_20251216..pdf

Attachment-4 “Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and FAR 52.212-2” to FA930126Q0006

FAR Provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (Mar 2023) applies to this acquisition and the following ADDENDUM applies:

1. Adherence to Instructions: The vendor must follow the instructions contained herein in providing their quotation. Vendors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a quotation being ineligible for award.

2. Exceptions to Terms and Conditions: Vendors must clearly identify any exception to solicitation terms and conditions and provide accompanying rationale.

3. Solicitation Face Page: Complete blocks 12 (if applicable), 17a (to include your CAGE code in the “CODE” box), total price of all CLINs in 26 and 30a, b, and c of the SF1449. In doing so, the vendor accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the SOLICITATION, with attachments. The SOLICITATION constitutes the model contract.

4. Period of Acceptance of Quotations: Paragraph 52.212-1(c), Period for Acceptance of Quotation, is tailored as follows: “The vendor agrees to hold the prices in its quotation firm for 90 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of quotations.”

5. Registration in System for Award Management (SAM): In order to be eligible for contract award, vendors must be registered in SAM at https://sam.gov. Award shall not be delayed due to as unregistered or inactive SAM account.

6. CMMC 2.0 Self-Assessment must be completed in SPRS by the solicitation due date of 5 January 2026: (See attachment 5 for instructions). As of 10 November 2025, there is a new requirement for

7. Cost or Pricing Data: The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial quotations, the Contracting Officer will review this determination and if, in the Contracting Officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested. However, if at any time during this competition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, vendors may be required to submit cost or pricing data to support a determination of price reasonableness and affordability. Further, the Contracting Officer may request that the data be submitted consistent with the format in Table 15-2 of FAR 15.408, but without the certification requirement of FAR 15.406-2 (see solicitation FAR Clause 52.215-20, Alt IV).

8. Quotation – General Information:

(a) The Quote shall consist of three (3) separate volumes:

i. Volume I - Price Quotation

ii. Volume II - Technical Submission

iii. Volume III - Past Performance Information

(b) Documents must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

i. Solicitation Requirements

ii. Evaluation factors for award in FAR Provision 52.212-2 EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS of the solicitation

iii. Page formatting and limitations – incorrectly formatted pages and excess pages will not be read or evaluated and will be removed from the quote. In addition, company introductory pages, to include marketing information, will not be read or evaluated and will be removed from the quote. The following sub-bullets apply to ALL three (3) quotation volumes.

• Page Margins When printed, all documents shall be formatted to print with 1” margins on all sides.

• Font & Spacing The font of all documents shall be Times New Roman font size 12 point or larger. All documents shall be single-spaced.

• Note that .zip files are NOT an acceptable format and will NOT go through the Air Force

Network.

iv. Quotation Submittal Quotation volumes and any other documents must be submitted via email to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist.

Note: This solicitation attachment provides addendums to two provisions.

Therefore, this attachment will NOT remain in the ensuing contract award.

Attachment-4 “Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and FAR 52.212-2” https://sam.gov/

9. Volume I Price Quotation:

(a) Quotation Guidance:

i. Enter your pricing into the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) # 0001- 0012 (Including the SLINs) of the Solicitation SF 1449, as noted in the following sub-bullets:

• Unit Price & Amount Vendors are to enter their quoted “Unit Price” amount, and then multiply that amount by the “Quantity” to determine the “Amount” for a CLIN. This process shall be done for all CLINs.

• Total Quoted Amount Vendors shall total the “Amount” of all CLINs to determine the Total Quoted Amount they shall place in Block #26 of the SF 1449.

• Solicitation Provisions Vendors are to ensure that they have completed all Solicitation Provisions.

(b) Electronic Copy: Shall submit an Adobe (.pdf) copy of the completed Solicitation to include any solicitation provisions.

(c) Page Limits: None

(d) Evaluation Criteria: See FAR Provision 52.212-2 EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS

10. Volume II, Technical Submission: Each vendor shall submit a technical submittal highlighting their ability to meet all technical requirements in the Statement of Work (SOW) and containing the subfactors as described in Section B of the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 - Evaluation

(a) Electronic Copy: Must be in Adobe (.pdf)

(b) Page Limits: Submit no more than twenty five (25) pages (excluding cover page and signature/company information page)

(c) Evaluation Criteria: See FAR Provision 52.212-2 EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS

11. Volume III Past Performance Information:

(a) Form Guidance:

i. Contractors shall Submit Present and Past Performance information on a minimum of two (2) and no more than three (3) contracts that are current, recent, and relevant to demonstrate the ability to perform the proposed effort.

Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. All past performances shall be recent (within 3 years), relevant or similar in nature to this requirement. Refer to 52.212-2 Evaluation for determining if submissions meet the definition of current, recent, and relevant. Clearly demonstrate what management actions were employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. Vendors are required to thoroughly explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as exceeded performance periods.

ii. Not having past performance history is not a disqualification factor but will be considered when selecting the best value offer. Offerors with no past performance will receive a Not applicable/Neutral (N) rating.

12.

(a) Electronic Copy: Must be in Adobe (.pdf)

(b) Page Limits: Limited to no more than six (6) pages.

(End Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Proposal Preparation Instructions)

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (NOV 2021)

The following words stating “offer”, “offeror”, and “proposal” are replaced with “quotation”, “vendor”, and “quote”.

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

(1) TECHNICAL

(2) PAST PERFORMANCE

(3) PRICE

In the integrated assessment upon which the award assessment will be made, Technical Acceptability and Past Performance shall be weighed more heavily than Price. The nature of this service demands a contractor with proven expertise, and prioritizing price alone risks compromising health and safety. Past performance is also critical, as contractors with historical success with the performance requirements and who can operate independently offer significant efficiency gains. The technical subfactors will be evaluated on a Technically Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

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

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive, best value evaluation in which competing vendors' technical capability, and past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly higher than price. By submission of its quotation 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 quotation 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 provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described herein. Unbalanced, inaccurate, or incomplete price quotes may be grounds for eliminating a quote from competition. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable.

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 Section B by the proposed unit price for CLINs and adding the totals for all CLINs.

B. Technical Requirement. 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 subfactors and the table provided below. If the lowest priced offeror is deemed to be acceptable in each of the subfactors, they will advance to the Past Performance Evaluation. If the lowest priced offeror is deemed unacceptable in one or more of the following subfactors, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated for technical acceptability. The offeror must be acceptable for each subfactor listed below in order to be deemed acceptable overall.

C. Factor 1: Technical Capability This factor evaluates the offeror's understanding of and proposed approach to meeting the technical requirements of the SOW. The quote must demonstrate a clear and feasible plan to successfully perform the work.

Subfactor 1.1: Technical Work Plan: The degree to which the offeror’s proposal details a comprehensive plan for executing all tasks outlined in SOW Section 1.1. This includes their methodology for:

• Removal and Disposal: The plan for removing non-repairable parts without damaging surrounding structures and the proposed method for legally compliant disposal.

• Procurement and Installation: The strategy for sourcing new, precisely matching parts from reputable suppliers and the proposed installation process that adheres to manufacturer specifications.

• Calibration and Testing: The detailed process for calibrating the door systems and performing comprehensive testing to verify full functionality and compliance with all standards, including ADA requirements.

Subfactor 1.2: Quality Control and Standards Compliance: The offeror’s proposed Quality Control Plan (QCP) for ensuring all work meets or exceeds the standards specified in the SOW. The proposal should describe how the offeror will internally verify compliance with all ANSI/BHMA standards (SOW 2.0) before presenting the work for government inspection.

Subfactor 1.3: Environmental and Safety Compliance Plan: The offeror's plan to adhere to all environmental and safety regulations.

• Environmental: A detailed approach for managing hazardous materials and waste IAW SOW Section 8.0, including the process for submitting required forms (Contractor Hazardous Materials Usage Tracking Form, SDS) and coordinating waste disposal manifests with the Edwards AFB Environmental Management Office.

• Safety: A description of the offeror’s safety program, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of OSHA requirements and a plan for mishap reporting as required by SOW Section 6.0.

Factor 2: Corporate Experience and Personnel Qualifications This factor evaluates the offeror's demonstrated experience in the automatic door industry and the qualifications of the personnel proposed to perform the work.

Subfactor 2.1: Corporate Experience: The offeror must provide verifiable evidence of meeting the experience requirements.

• Demonstrate at least ten (10) years of experience in the automatic door industry (SOW 2.1).

• Provide at least three (3) examples of contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity performed within the last five years. Include project descriptions, contract value, and a customer point of contact.

Subfactor 2.2: Personnel Qualifications and Certifications: The offeror must demonstrate that its proposed personnel meet or exceed all qualification requirements of the SOW.

• Provide the name and resume of the proposed Contract Manager, detailing their experience in managing similar contracts (SOW 4.1).

• Provide evidence that performing personnel possess a current American Association of Automatic Door Manufacturing (AAADM) Training Certificate as a Certified Inspector (SOW 2.1).

• Provide a copy of the company's valid General Contracting License in the State of California (SOW 2.1).

Factor 3: Management Approach & Security Compliance This factor evaluates the offeror’s plan for managing the contract, communicating with the government, and ensuring compliance with all installation security requirements.

Subfactor 3.1: Management and Communication Plan: The offeror’s proposed plan for contract management. The proposal should describe how the Contract Manager will ensure overall coordination, be available 24/7, and guarantee a response to government inquiries within one hour as required by SOW 4.1.

Subfactor 3.2: Security Plan: The offeror’s plan for complying with all Edwards AFB security requirements outlined in SOW Section 5.0. This includes their process for:

• Ensuring all employees undergo required background checks.

• Obtaining and displaying identification badges.

• Managing a current list of employees for the GPM/CO.

• Ensuring employees complete the required Antiterrorism and OPSEC training within the specified timeframes.

D. Past Performance.

Finally, the contractor shall provide at least two (2) past performance work records. The Government shall seek recent and relevant performance information based on (1) the past efforts provided by the Prime Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive an ‘Exceptional’ past performance assessment rating. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to provide for the Automatic Door repair requirement to meet users’ needs, based on the offerors demonstrated record of performance. The offeror’s Past Performance Assessment will evaluate recency, relevancy, and quality and will result in a rating of Exceptional, Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory, or Not Applicable/Neutral. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful past performance assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating ‘Not Applicable’, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral)

Table C-2: Past Performance Evaluation rating Quality Assessment Rating Description EXCEPTIONAL (E) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

GOOD (G) During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M) During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U) During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered.

Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT

APPLICABLE/NEUTRAL (N)

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. The rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably

4. Award Decision: If the lowest priced offer is judged to have an ‘Exceptional’ past performance assessment rating, and receives an Acceptable rating on the technical evaluation, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have an ‘Exceptional’ past performance assessment rating or receives an ‘Unacceptable’ rating on the technical evaluation, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by TEP) until an offeror is judged to have an ‘Exceptional’ past performance assessment, or until all offerors are evaluated.

E. Vendor Responsibilities: Vendors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and, in the format, specified in FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors -- Commercial Items. Vendors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their quote (for example, the failure of a past performance) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the vendor has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Interchanges between the Government and vendors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute interchanges and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for quote revision.

F. Government Discretion Regarding Interchanges: The Government intends to award a contract without Interchanges with respective vendors in accordance with FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors – Competitive Acquisitions. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct Interchanges if deemed in its best interest.

Interchanges may take place regarding any portion of the three quotation Volumes (Price, Technical, or Past Performance or general documentation). The Government may conduct Interchanges with one, some, none or all vendors at its discretion. Interchanges do not require a distinction between whether the Interchange results in a change to a quotation or only clarifies an administrative matter or quotation mistake. The Government has discretion to evaluate all quote submissions before inciting Interchanges with vendors (through Interchange Notices or “INs”), and vendors do not have to be offered an opportunity to revise their quotation through a Final Quotation Revision (FQR). If, during the evaluation period, the Simplified Acquisition Team determines to be in the best interest of the Government to hold Interchanges, vendor responses to INs and the FQR (if requested by the Government) will be considered in making the award decision. Note that in accordance with FAR 13, vendors do not have to be offered an opportunity to revise their quotation through a formal FQR. If the vendor’s quotation has been evaluated as acceptable at the time Interchanges are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FQR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the vendor’s quotation be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

(End Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation)