Attachment 2 52.212-2 Addenda.docx

ATTACHMENT 2 - ADDENDUM 52.212-2, EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES (Deviation 2026-O0038) (FEB 2026)

The following is inserted as new paragraph (d) of the provision:

(d) BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) best value source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) RFO Parts 12, 15, and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures in which competing offerors’ combined past performance information will be approximately equal to price. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers will be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Any proposal with an unacceptable technical rating will not receive further evaluation. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), if the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of another offeror justifies the higher price premium. In that event, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating.

I. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Negotiations: The Government intends to award without negotiations but reserves the right to conduct negotiations if determined necessary. Any negotiations will be conducted IAW RFO 15.204. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the SSA, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

B. Volume I, Summary and Miscellaneous Data. Completed RFP along with any and all signed amendments to the RFP.

C. Volume II, Technical Proposal

(1) Technical Acceptability Factor. The Government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1 below. A rating of unacceptable in one or more technical subfactor will constitute an overall rating of Unacceptable for the technical evaluation. The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors outlined below as they apply to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) in Attachment 3. Detailed preparation instructions are included in the Addendum to RFO 52.212-1(f), Proposal Preparation Instructions.

Table 1. Technical Acceptability Ratings, Defined

The proposals will be evaluated against the following subfactor(s):

Subfactor 1 – Day One Readiness. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability on Day One to staff all Priority One languages with at least one qualified eMentor IAW PWS paragraphs 1.4, 3.2, and Figure 5.2(a) and their ability to provide a contractor-developed eMentor Roster IAW PWS paragraph 3.5 and Appendix 9. To enable this demonstration, the offeror shall provide a comma-separated values (.csv) file. The “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from the Addendum to RFO 52.212-1 and is provided here for quick reference only.

At a minimum, the offeror must demonstrate ability to fulfill the following requirements in Table 2 below:

Table 2. Subfactor 1: Day One Readiness

Priority One Language Instruction: Demonstrate the ability to staff all Priority One languages with qualified eMentor instructors postured to provide instruction on Day One by providing a single eMentor Roster as a comma-separated values (.csv) file that meets all of the following conditions:

(1) it must contain at least one instructor representing the specific individuals intended to provide language instruction for each Priority One language IAW PWS paragraph 1.4 and listed in PWS Figure 5.2(a), and

(2) it must adhere to the seven-column format specified IAW PWS paragraph 3.5 and PWS Appendix 9, and

(3) every row in the file must contain a “Yes” in Column G, confirming qualifications IAW PWS paragraph 3.2.

The offeror must demonstrate the ability to staff all Priority One languages with qualified eMentor instructors postured to provide instruction on Day One by providing a single eMentor Roster as a comma-separated values (.csv) file that meets all of the following conditions:

(1) it must contain at least one instructor representing the specific individuals intended to provide language instruction for each Priority One language IAW PWS paragraph 1.4 and listed in PWS Figure 5.2(a), and

(2) it must adhere to the seven-column format specified IAW PWS paragraph 3.5 and PWS Appendix 9, and

(3) every row in the file must contain a “Yes” in Column G, confirming qualifications IAW PWS paragraph 3.2.

Subfactor 2 – Management Plan. This subfactor evaluates the offeror's Management Plan to determine if it addresses the specific requirements for Key Personnel and the Instructor Training and Certification process. The “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from the Addendum to RFO 52.212-1 and is provided here for quick reference only.

At a minimum, the offeror must demonstrate ability to fulfill the following requirements in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Subfactor 2: Management Plan

(1) Key Personnel:

Demonstrate the ability to staff the Program Lead position IAW PWS paragraph 10.3, Figure 10.3, and paragraph 10.4 by submitting a resume for the specific individual intended to fill this role that explicitly demonstrates (1) a minimum of at least three years' experience managing a foreign language distance learning program, (2) experience with recruitment, development, and scheduling of a cadre of foreign language instructors across ten or more languages including oversight of instructor management across 10 or more languages, and (3) experience overseeing all user activity on an online synchronous learning management system.

(2) Instructor Training and Certification: Demonstrate the ability to train and certify eMentor instructors IAW PWS paragraph 3.4 and subparagraphs by providing a management plan that describes the offeror’s process for training and certifying instructors.

(1) The offeror must demonstrate through a submitted resume their ability to staff the Program Lead position IAW PWS paragraph 10.3, Figure 10.3, and paragraph 10.4 by submitting a resume for the specific individual intended to fill this role that explicitly demonstrates (1) a minimum of at least three years' experience managing a foreign language distance learning program, (2) experience with recruitment, development, and scheduling of a cadre of foreign language instructors across ten or more languages including oversight of instructor management across 10 or more languages, and (3) experience overseeing all user activity on an online synchronous learning management system.

(2) The offeror must demonstrate through a provided management plan the ability to train and certify eMentor instructors IAW PWS paragraph 3.4 and subparagraphs by providing a management plan that describes the offeror’s process for training and certifying instructors.

Subfactor 3 – Instructional Delivery. This subfactor evaluates the offeror's technical capability to perform the required instructional delivery IAW requirements described in the PWS. The offeror shall submit a UCC Platform Checklist demonstrating adherence to the minimum standards required for its selected UCC platform IAW PWS paragraphs 1.3.4 and Appendix 8 and provide a recorded video demonstrating the ability to deliver instruction IAW PWS paragraphs 5.2(a), 3.4.1.1, and Appendix 6 while operating all core functions of the UCC platform IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.2. The offeror will make the sample lesson video available for viewing via a link provided in their Summary Pages document.

The “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from the Addendum to RFO 52.212-1 and is provided here for quick reference only.

At a minimum, the offeror must demonstrate ability to fulfill the following requirements in Table 4 below:

Table 4. Subfactor 3: Instructional Delivery

(1) UCC Platform Compliance:

Demonstrate ability to provide a UCC platform that complies with all technical requirements outlined in PWS paragraph 1.3.4 and Appendix 8 by identifying by name the offeror’s proposed platform on the UCC Platform Checklist, IAW PWS Appendix 8, and submitting the completed checklist as the formal representation of that specific platform’s full compliance with all requirements therein.

(2) Sample Lesson Demonstration: Demonstrate the ability to deliver instruction IAW government-provided curriculum via the offeror’s proposed UCC by submitting a recorded video of an eMentor presenting content live and synchronously to one or more students. The lesson must be (1) taught in Russian IAW PWS paragraph 5.2(a), (2) endure for a minimum of 45 and a maximum of 50 minutes, (3) cover content from Section IV “Instructional Sequence” of the “Military Policy in Strategic Contexts” lesson plan IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.1.1 and Appendix 6, (4) show the eMentor facilitating a section that is student-centered and includes a student discussion, mission-oriented reflection questions, and structured output tasks IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.1.1 and Appendix 6, and (5) utilize key UCC platform functions, including initiating live sessions, configuring and managing audio and video settings, sharing screens and documents, exchanging messages via live text chat, uploading class materials, and explaining how to configure their keyboard for international fonts (e.g. Chinese characters) IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.2. The offeror will make the sample lesson video available for viewing via a link provided in their Summary Pages document.

(1) The offeror must demonstrate through a completed UCC Platform Checklist the ability to provide a UCC platform that complies with all technical requirements outlined in PWS paragraph 1.3.4 and Appendix 8 by identifying by name the offeror's proposed platform on the UCC Platform Checklist IAW PWS Appendix 8 and submitting the completed checklist as the formal representation of that specific platform’s full compliance with all requirements therein.

(2) The offeror must demonstrate the ability to deliver instruction IAW government-provided curriculum via the offeror’s proposed UCC by submitting a recorded video of an eMentor presenting content live and synchronously to one or more students. The lesson must be (1) taught in Russian IAW PWS paragraph 5.2(a), (2) endure for a minimum of 45 and a maximum of 50 minutes, (3) cover content from Section IV “Instructional Sequence” of the “Military Policy in Strategic Contexts” lesson plan IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.1.1 and Appendix 6, (4) show the eMentor facilitating a section that is student-centered and includes a student discussion, mission-oriented reflection questions, and structured output tasks IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.1.1 and Appendix 6, and (5) utilize key UCC platform functions, including initiating live sessions, configuring and managing audio and video settings, sharing screens and documents, exchanging messages via live text chat, uploading class materials, and explaining how to configure their keyboard for international fonts (e.g. Chinese characters) IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.2. The offeror will make the sample lesson video available for viewing via a link provided in their Summary Pages document.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Information

The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information based on (i) the references provided by the offeror (RFP Attachment 4), and (ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (RFP Attachment 5), and (iii) any data independently obtained by the Government (e.g., the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)). If a reference identified by the offeror IAW Addendum RFO 52.212-1 does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the Government may follow up with the reference POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire.

The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that are proposed to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., 25% or more of the work) when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

Joint Venture: If a joint venture arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the joint venture agreement, including any relevant and recent past performance information as a joint venture. If none exists, provide any relevant and recent past performance of each party to the joint venture.

(A) Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years from the issuance date of the solicitation, to include at least twelve (12) months of documented performance during the three (3) year period.

(B) Relevant contracts performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 5 below:

Table 5. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table 5. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

· Foreign Language Instruction Services > $2 million per year.

· Delivery via an online platform that is Operating System (OS) and hardware agnostic.

· Scheduling of instructors and students across Interagency Language Roundtable Levels 0 thru 4, hours of availability, and time zones, while meeting student throughput and grouping requirements.

· Language instruction in all Priority One languages listed in Figure 5.2(a) of the PWS and at least 50% of the Priority Two languages listed in Figure 5.2(b) of the PWS.

· Throughput of 1,000 or more students per year.

· Foreign Language Instruction Services > $1 million per year.

· Delivery via an online platform that is Operating System (OS) and hardware agnostic.

· Scheduling of instructors and students across Interagency Language Roundtable Levels 0 thru 3.

· Language instruction in at least 75% of the Priority One languages listed in Figure 5.2(a) of the PWS and at least 10% of the Priority Two languages listed in Figure 5.2(b).

· Throughput of 500 or more students per year.

· Foreign Language Instruction Services > $500K per year.

· Delivery via an online platform that is Operating System (OS) and hardware agnostic.

· Scheduling of instructors and students across Interagency Language Roundtable Levels 0 thru 3.

· Language instruction in 10 or more of the Priority One languages listed in Figure 5.2(a) of the PWS.

· Throughput of 250 or more students per year.

(C) Sources. The Government will seek relevant performance information from the offeror in the form of Past Performance Questionnaires that are forwarded by the offeror to its selected sources; and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Performance information may also be obtained from the references for each past/present effort submitted and/or from other sources. The past performance evaluation will take into account information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company, or joint ventures of the parent company, when:

(1) The performance of these past efforts is relevant to the proposed effort; and

(2) When the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed effort.

(D) Performance Evaluation. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror’s past performance meets the PWS and technical requirements of previous efforts, the assessment may consider things such as the offeror’s history of adhering to schedules, the administrative aspects of performance, reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction.

When a recent and relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the suitability and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent projects or performance evaluations to review the corrective actions and evaluate their effectiveness.

The past performance of the joint venture, when evaluating an offer from a joint venture. If the joint venture does not demonstrate past performance for award, the past performance of each party to the joint venture must be considered.

(E) Performance Confidence Assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s or joint-venture’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s or joint-venture’s demonstrated record of performance. The Government will combine the recency, relevancy and performance evaluations of all the efforts considered for the offeror or joint-venture to assign a Performance Confidence Assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence or No Confidence as described below in Table 6.

Table 6. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see RFO 15.202(c)(1)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of recent and relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

E. Volume IV, Price Proposal

(1) Price Evaluation Factor. The Government will rank all offers by price, including all option prices. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the total evaluated price (TEP). Separately priced line items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

a) Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be computed for each offer in order to meet the requirements of RFO Parts 6 and 17. The offeror’s TEP will be determined as the sum of all Labor Hour CLINs (X001 and 2002) for the base period and all option periods.

b) Evaluating the Option CLINs does not obligate the Government to exercise the Options.

c) In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW RFO 15.404-6. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

d) If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the Contracting Officer may request submission of other than certified cost or pricing data and may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in RFO 15.402 and RFO 15.403-1, to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

Price Performance Trade-off. After the initial evaluation of each offeror’s price proposal, the Government will rank all offerors by price from the lowest TEP to the highest TEP and conduct the Technical Evaluation solely on the offer with the lowest TEP. If the lowest-priced offer is determined to be Technically Unacceptable, that offer will be eliminated from consideration and the next lowest-priced offer will be evaluated for Technically Acceptability. Once the lowest-priced, Technically Acceptable offer is determined, the Government will then proceed to conduct the Past Performance Evaluation for that offeror. If the offeror is assessed a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence rating, its offer will be determined to represent the best value to the Government, and no other offers will be evaluated or considered.

If the offeror with the lowest-priced, Technically Acceptable offer does not have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating, the Government will then evaluate the next lowest-priced offer for Technically Acceptability and if determined Technically Acceptable, proceed to conduct a Past Performance Evaluation on that offeror. The process will continue (in ascending TEP) until the Government finds an offeror with a Technically Acceptable offer and a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating or until all Technically Acceptable offers are considered.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then make an integrated assessment, best value award decision which will include the offeror with a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating (if found) and all technically acceptable offers with TEPs lower than the TEP of the offeror with the Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating, unless it is in the Government’s best interest to conduct negotiations. For example: five technically acceptable offers are received; the offerors with the first and second lowest TEP offers have performance assessment ratings less than Substantial Confidence, but the offeror with the third lowest TEP has a performance assessment rating of Substantial Confidence. The SSA would make an integrated assessment, best value award decision among those three offerors. The Government intends to award a contract without negotiations with respective offerors; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct negotiations if deemed in its best interest.

(End of Addendum)