Attachment 3 - 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors Addendum - Section M_14 Aug 2026_4 pages.pdf

Attachment 3

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

ADDENDUM TO RFO 52.212-2 - EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL

SERVICES

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

(1) PRICE

(2) TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

(3) PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance is significantly more important than price when being evaluated. Technical acceptability will be pass/fail and will determine whether a quote is considered at all.

(a) To be technically acceptable the offeror’s quote must meet all performance work statement (PWS) requirements, including the mandatory submission of a Mission Essential Services Plan in accordance with R-DFARS 252.237-7024 Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services. Failure to address all minimum items required or as stated will result in your quote being determined unacceptable and excluded from evaluation.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate quotes for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government will evaluate the price of any possible extension in accordance with RFO 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services by dividing the price of the final period of performance by two and adding it to the total price of the base and all options. The Government may determine that a quote is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection where past performance is rated significantly more important than price. By submission of its quote, the offeror accedes to the terms and conditions of this solicitation. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Initially, quotes shall be sorted by price, including option prices and the price of a full 6-month extension in accordance with RFO 52.217-8. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the pricing schedule by the proposed unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount for each. Quote evaluation will then proceed according to this addendum. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with RFO 15.404 and RFO 31.201-3), unbalanced (in accordance with RFO 15.404-6), or unaffordable (not within any budgetary information included in the solicitation) may not be considered for award.

B. The contracting officer (CO) and requirement owner will then review all offerors to ensure technical requirements have been met and will rate each offer as acceptable or unacceptable. This will include the evaluation of provided Mission Essential Service Plans or the lack thereof.

C. Next, the contracting officer shall review recent and relevant performance information pertaining to the lowest priced evaluated offeror. This review will include references provided by the offeror and data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

D. Relevant present/past performance includes performance of efforts similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance period. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Neutral Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5, Performance Confidence Assessments. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be considered as part of offeror evaluations when relevant.. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Neutral Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

TABLE 5 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

*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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully

*SUBSTANTIAL or SATISFACTORY confidence rating is worth more than a NEUTRAL.

E. In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. The government will use the following relevancy definitions as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings, when assessing recent/relevant contracts.

TABLE 4. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant

Present/past performance involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

F. If the lowest priced evaluated quote is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating, that quote 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 quotes.

G. The contracting officer shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, or until all offerors are evaluated.

H. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in accordance with the instructions specified in

Attachment 2 – 52.212-2 Instructions to Offerors – Section L_14 Aug 2026_4 pages, to permit a meaningful evaluation of their offers. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their quote or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute negotiations and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for quote revision.

I. The government intends to award a contract without negotiations. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct negotiations if deemed in its best interest.

__________END__________