Attachment 02 -Addendum 52.212-1 & 52.212-2.pdf

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT - ADDENDUMS

52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS - ADDENDUM

QUOTATION PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS: Provide one (1) electronic quotation copy via email. The quotation shall be submitted in four sections: Administrative, Technical Capabilities, Past Performance, and Price

The Government will not be responsible for any failure of transmission or receipt of the quotation, or any failure of the contractor to verify receipt of the quotation. All quotations submitted after the deadline will be considered untimely and ineligible for award.

The quotation shall be clear, concise and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiation of the validity of stated claims. Responses to this solicitation shall strictly adhere to the requirements set forth in the solicitation documents. Submissions that do not adhere to format and content requirements may be considered non-compliant. The Government reserves the right to eliminate any such quotations from consideration for award. The quotation shall not contain any extraneous information such as advertisements or marketing information.

SECTION I - ADMINISTRATIVE:

Within the Administrative section, contractors shall ensure that their quote reflects contractor's name, address, and telephone number, CAGE code and DUNS number, points of contact (POCs) authorized to negotiate with the Government on the contractors behalf, the solicitation number, and a statement confirming the contractor is willing to hold its prices firm for at least 90 days from the date specified for receipt of quotations. Contractors shall submit signed and dated quotes to arrive no later than 29 May 2026 11:00 AM Alaskan Standard.

Questions shall be submitted no later than 15 May 2026 2:00 pm Alaskan Standard via email.

Questions submitted after the question due date may not be accepted.

SECTION II- TECHNICAL CAPABILITES:

Offerors shall submit a technical capabilities statement outlining how they plan to meet or exceed the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements. Offerors shall be evaluated on a

Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

SECTION III- PAST PERFORMANCE:

The Government will use information obtained from sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources and/or non-Government sources.

SECTION IV – PRICE:

The contractor shall submit pricing for all contract line-item numbers (CLINs) identified in the solicitation on SF1449. The contractor submitting a quote shall ensure they include unit prices as well as total line-item pricing within the space provided on SF 1449.

END OF ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014) ADDENDUM

Award will be made to the technically acceptable contractor providing a quote that is deemed most advantageous to the Government considering Technical, Past Performance and Price. Past

Performance will be more important than Price in regard to the evaluation.

Evaluation Criteria

FACTOR 1- Technical Capability

An evaluation of the technical acceptability of each offeror's technical capability shall be made. To be deemed technically acceptable, an offeror's proposal must demonstrate the ability to meet or exceed all requirements outlined in Attachment 01, resulting in a

Acceptable/Unacceptable assessment. To be considered technically acceptable, the offeror's proposal must demonstrate a viable plan for staffing, equipment, and scheduling that demonstrates full understanding with Attachment 01.

Factor 2- Past Performance.

The Past Performance evaluation results in an integrated assessment of the contractor’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements and the assignment of an overall rating (Table 1) based on consideration of the contractor’s recent and quality past performance based on the contractor’s past performance information found in various government databases. Contractors may provide past performance information for those contracts/projects not found in government databases, and the government will include them in their past performance determination.

The Government will use the following definitions/ratings when making an overall Performance

Confidence Assessment (PCA).

Table 1. Past Performance Confidence Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the contractor’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has high expectations that the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the contractor’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the contractor’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The contractor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the contractor’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the contractor’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the contractor will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Below are the definitions and past performance evaluation process that the government will utilize: The following three (3) definitions will be utilized for the PCA determination:

(a) Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information contained in government databases containing past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. For projects/contracts/TOs that are actively being performed, performance must be a minimum of 80% complete as of the date of this solicitation.

Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(b) Relevancy Assessment

An assessment of the recent past performance information will be made to determine its relevancy. The Government will evaluate how closely the services performed under previously completed contracts relate to the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the requirement described in this solicitation's Performance Work Statement (PWS). The following ratings will be assigned:

Relevancy Rating Description

Very Relevant The offeror’s past performance demonstrates experience performing industrial cleaning services in an active power plant or a similarly complex and hazardous industrial environment (e.g., heavy manufacturing, refinery). The scope and magnitude of the work are similar to the PWS requirements.

Relevant The offeror’s past performance demonstrates experience performing commercial-grade cleaning services in an environment with some complexity, but not in an active power plant (e.g., warehouses, non-hazardous industrial facilities). The scope of work may be smaller or less complex than the PWS requirements.

Somewhat Relevant The offeror’s past performance is for services of a significantly smaller scope or in a non-hazardous environment (e.g., standard office cleaning, basic janitorial services).

The work does not reflect the complexity or risk inherent in the

PWS.

Not Relevant The offeror’s past performance involves dissimilar services and is not useful in predicting success for this requirement.

*Only Very Relevant and Relevant past performance will be used to establish the final

Performance Confidence Assessment rating. If an offeror has no Very Relevant or Relevant past performance, they will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

(c) Performance Quality Assessment

After the determination of recency and relevancy, the Government will assess the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the contractor’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the contractor’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

This factor (Past Performance) is assessed with an overall performance confidence assessment (PCA) rating (Table 1) which is based on an integrated assessment of the contractor’s recent, relevant and quality past performance. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is determined at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

Contractors without a record of recent, relevant and quality past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past

Performance factor.

More relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. A strong record of relevant past performance will be considered more advantageous to the

Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

Factor 3 - Price

The Government will evaluate quotations for price reasonableness and completeness using the

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) method. The TEP is the sum of all prices for the entire effort, including all options.

A price is considered reasonable if it does not exceed what a prudent person would pay in a competitive business environment. To determine a fair and reasonable price, the Government may use various price analysis techniques. These techniques may include, but are not limited to:

• Comparison of prices received in response to this solicitation.

• Comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Estimate (IGE).

To be eligible for award, the price must be determined to be fair and reasonable.

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The Government intends to award a contract to the responsible offeror whose quotation, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to represent the best value to the

Government, price and other factors considered. The evaluation process will proceed as follows:

A. All quotations will first be evaluated for technical acceptability on an "Acceptable" or

"Unacceptable" basis. A quotation must be rated "Acceptable" to be considered for award. Quotations rated "Unacceptable" will not be evaluated further.

B. For all technically acceptable quotations, the Government will assess the offeror's recent and relevant past performance to assign a Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

This rating reflects the Government's confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully perform the requirements of the PWS, particularly regarding the management of hazards and specialized equipment.

C. The Government will evaluate the total proposed price of all technically acceptable quotations. Price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness using price analysis techniques. The Government may also evaluate prices to determine if they are unbalanced. A quotation may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

D. After evaluating Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, and Price, the Government will make a best value tradeoff decision. In this tradeoff analysis, the Government will consider the benefit of paying a price premium for a higher Performance Confidence

Assessment rating.

A higher rating (e.g., "Substantial Confidence") indicates a lower risk of unsuccessful performance. Given the hazardous nature of the work environment and the critical importance of safety and operational continuity at the Central Heat and Power Plant, the

Government may determine that paying a higher price for a contractor with a proven record of relevant past performance is more advantageous than awarding to a lower-priced contractor with a lower or unknown (i.e., "Neutral Confidence") performance record.

However, the Government will not pay a price premium for a higher-rated quotation if the price is deemed unreasonable. The Government reserves the right to award to a lower-rated, lower-priced offeror if it determines that the performance risk associated with that offeror is acceptable and the price savings warrant the acceptance of that risk.

The ultimate award decision will be based on an integrated assessment of which quotation provides the greatest overall value and confidence to the Government.

END OF ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2