Addendum to RFO FAR 52.212-2 Evaluations 19AUG2026.pdf

PART II: ADDENDUM TO RFO FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND

COMMERCIAL SERVICES

Addendum to Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services

ADDENDUM TO CLAUSE 52.212-2 Evaluations

The Government will utilize a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) evaluation method for this requirement. The

Government will award one (1) Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) C-Type contract to the offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, has the lowest evaluated price, and is deemed responsible. This requirement will be awarded as a single

Firm-Fixed-Price C-type contract; no IDIQ ordering procedures or clauses apply to this acquisition.

The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and RFO FAR Part 19, Small

Business Programs, as supplemented by the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS), and whose offer conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, and all other information required by the solicitation)Offers that fail to address all the requirements set forth in the Solicitation will be rejected. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror's submission should contain their best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The Government reserves the right to reject an offer upon initial submission and not consider it for contract award if any required data is absent or if the data received conveys a misunderstanding of the requirement.

BASIS FOR AWARD:

The Government will award one (1) Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract to the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)

Offeror who utilizes experienced, trained, and certified technicians who possess the knowledge, experience, and skills pertinent to this requirement. The Government will evaluate the contractor's Technical Approach, Past Performance, and

Price Proposal to ensure that it reflects a sound understanding of this requirement and complies with the requirements in the solicitation. A determination of a fair and reasonable price will be conducted. The Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO)

FAR, as supplemented by the RFO DFARS and AFARS, will be used to evaluate the offer and award this requirement.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offer:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Evaluation criteria consist of factors and elements. The proposal will be evaluated under three (3) evaluation factors:

• Factor 1: Technical

• Element 1: Technical Approach and Understanding

• Element 2: Deliverables and Quality Control

• Element 3: Key Personnel

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Factor 3: Cost/Price

Factor 1 - Technical

The Technical factor evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror's capability to satisfy the Government's minimum requirements. The Technical factor has three elements. The Government will evaluate the technical approach, quality controls, and key personnel qualifications related to providing preventive and unscheduled maintenance for fifteen (15) artificial turf fields located throughout Fort Jackson, SC.

The following provides a general breakdown for evaluating the Technical Acceptability elements:

Element 1: Technical Approach and Understanding

The proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of and a sound approach to performing all services outlined in the

PWS, including the specific basic services and tasks described in PWS Part 5 (Specific Tasks).

To be rated Acceptable, the proposal must prove:

1. PWS Compliance: A compliant, clear operational methodology to perform multi-leveling field vacuuming, extensive fiber brush grooming, use of magnetic metal sweepers, and specialized synthetic turf cleaning/sanitization across the fifteen (15) synthetic fields.

2. Operational Responsiveness: A solid approach to executing scheduled semi-annual services and mobilizing personnel/equipment for unscheduled emergency repairs/maintenance in accordance with the response timelines set forth in the PWS.

Element 2: Deliverables and Quality Control

The proposal must address the deliverables listed in Technical Exhibit B and include the development of a Quality Control

Plan (QCP) in accordance with PWS Paragraph 1.5.1.

To be rated Acceptable, the proposal must prove:

3. Reporting & Deliverables compliance: A compliant administrative framework to compile, track, and electronically deliver all semi-annual reporting, worksheets, and documentation specified in PWS Technical Exhibit B.

4. QCP Framework: A draft Quality Control Plan (QCP) that completely addresses all requirements and criteria outlined in PWS Paragraph 1.5.1 (such as lines of authority, deficiency prevention, inspection logging, key controls, and records preservation).

Element 3: Key Personnel

The proposal must confirm that all Key Personnel meet the minimum qualifications specified in the PWS.

To be rated Acceptable, the proposal must confirm:

5. PWS Qualifications & Experience: All proposed key personnel meet the minimum standards specified in PWS

Paragraph 1.10. This includes confirming that the Contract Manager/Alternate has full authority to act on daily operations, and the Quality Control Manager and Systems Administrator each possess a minimum of five (5) years of direct experience.

6. Special Qualifications: Proof that proposed staff possess and maintain active Information Assurance Technician (IAT)

Level I professional certifications as required by PWS Paragraph 1.10.d.

Technical Factor Ratings:

The Technical Factor (including all three elements) will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below:

Adjectival Rating Definition

Acceptable Technical Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Technical Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Note: An "Unacceptable" rating in any single element will result in an overall rating of "Unacceptable" for Factor

1.

Factor 2 - Past Performance

The past performance evaluation will assess the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of past performance. Past Performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror's recent (within the last 3 years) and relevant past performance, focusing on services similar to the

Turf Field Maintenance requirements. The Government will evaluate past performance based on information submitted per Section L and other available sources.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings:

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.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a "neutral" rating shall be considered "Acceptable."

Factor 3 - Cost/Price

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total proposed price for all performance periods

(Base Period plus Option Years 1 through 4).

The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the base period and option period prices are significantly unbalanced.

As part of price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see RFO FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding one-half (1/2) of the Offeror's final option year price (Option Year 4) to the Offeror's total evaluated price. Thus, the

Offeror's total evaluated price for the purpose of evaluation will include:

• Base Period Price (CLIN 0001)

• Option Year 1 Price (CLIN 1001)

• Option Year 2 Price (CLIN 2001)

• Option Year 3 Price (CLIN 3001)

• Option Year 4 Price (CLIN 4001)

• Evaluation of 52.217-8 Option Price (equivalent to 1/2 of Option Year 4 price)

Offerors are not required to enter a separate price for the six-month extension period. Award will be made to the responsible offeror found to be technically acceptable with the lowest total evaluated price.

(End of provision)