Attachment 3 - Addendum to 52.212-1 and 52.212-2.pdf

Attachment 3

Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Sep 2023)

***THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE PHYSICALLY REMOVED

FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD. ***

Addendum to 52.212-1(a), NAICS code and small business size standard. The NAICS code is 561621and the size standard is $25M for this requirement.

Addendum to 52.212-1 (b), Submission of Offers. Submit signed and dated offers in accordance with the RFQ and any amendments.

Addendum to 52.212-1(c), Period for acceptance of offers. The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 30 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers, unless another time period is specified in an addendum to the solicitation.

Required Statements:

• The Offeror must provide a statement that their proposal for the project is compliant with Attachment #8 Non- Nuclear Configuration Management Database (CMD) Equipment Approval Memorandum, dated 29 April 2024. In addition, the Offeror must provide a statement to ensure that all deliverables supplied over the period of performance of the contract will be compliant with the CMD Equipment Approval Memorandum, dated 29 April 2024. The Offeror must also provide a statement that, if the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) updates, corrects, changes, or adds to the CMD Equipment Approval Memorandum, the offeror intends to comply with all regulations therein.

Upon contract award, the successful offeror will receive documentation outlining post-award testing requirements.

Compliance with these testing procedures is mandatory. The guidance and methods identified in the plan apply to the test and turnover of all new ESE installations to the extent that such systems and equipment are addressed in the plan.

Upon a contract award, the awardee will be provided a document to outline Electronic Security System (ESS) installation best practices for United States Air Force (USAF).

General Instructions:

A. To ensure a timely and equitable evaluation of the offer, the offeror must follow the instructions contained herein.

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including 1. Terms and conditions 2. Representation and certifications.

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

B. The proposal shall include three separate parts: 1) Price Submission 2) Technical Submission and 3) Past Performance Submission

C. Points of Contact: All communications shall be submitted via e-mail to all the following personnel and e-mail addresses: 1st Lt Rowan Thom at rowan.thom.1@us.af.mil. (she/her) AND SrA Douglas McGee at douglas.mcgee.1@us.af.mil.

D. Offer Submission Instructions: Offers must be submitted electronically via e-mail to the personnel noted above.

All documents submitted must be saved in pdf format and shall follow the instructions in FAR 52.212-1. All documents are due on 19 September 2025 at 2:00 PM CDT. Late submissions will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f) "Late submission, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers."

All submitted pages shall be single sided, typed, standard 8.5” x 11” pages. Type shall be no smaller than size 12 font. If page limits are exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal.

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and substantiating the mailto:rowan.thom.1@us.af.mil mailto:douglas.mcgee.1@us.af.mil validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal.

Each submission within the proposal shall be separately identified. Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch and each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively. Elaborate formats, bindings, or color presentations are not desired or required.

QUESTIONS: Questions must be submitted via e-mail to the personnel noted above. All questions are due no later than 29 August 2025 at 2:00 PM CDT. Questions and answers will be posted to SAM.gov.

E. Specific Instructions:

Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture Documentation (if applicable): Failure to submit this documentation, if offeror is claiming this in their business approach, will render the offeror's offer non-responsive and no further evaluation of the offeror's offer will be conducted.

Teaming Arrangements/Joint Venture Documentation (if applicable): If Teaming Arrangements are contemplated, they must comply with the appropriate Federal Regulations (13 C.F.R. Part 121 (Size Regulations), Part 124 (8(a) & SDB) and Part 125 (Government Contracting Programs))

All Joint Ventures must be in compliance with the SBA guidelines. NO CORRECTONS AND/OR CHANGES IN

PROPOSED TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS OR JOINT VENTURES ARE ALLOWED AFTER TIME OF

SUBMISSION OF OFFERS.

Teaming Arrangements as a Prime and Subcontractor relationship (if applicable): Offerors must provide the following information not later than the date and time offers are due:

1. Include size of each concern required at 13 CFR 121.103(h) (l) (2) (ii) and 124.513 (b) (1)

2. Clearly establish roles of each party (who is prime and who is subcontractor, who is responsible for what tasks, contract administration, offers, work management, etc.);

3. Subcontractor’s past performance cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor's consent.

Provide a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance questionnaire to the prime contractor, only if it is being used as part of the past performance evaluation.

4. Identify each member's share of the prospective contract, 50/50, 51/49, etc.

5. Include exclusivity that the team member will not be replaced for the duration of the contract, any exceptions should by identified and assurance that the team members are not teaming with another firm for the same procurement.

6. Include a statement of acknowledgment that the prime contractor shall remain fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any teaming arrangements between the prime contractor and its subcontractors.

Joint Ventures (if applicable): Offerors must provide the following information not later than the date and time offers are due:

1. Include all requirements at 13 C.F.R. Part 1214.513, including size concern information.

2. Include a statement confirming that at least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern IAW FAR 52.219-14(c)(1); and

3. Joint Venture registration in SAM, identifying the Joint Venture as a small business concern under NAICS code

561621 in their representations and certifications. No corrections and/or changes in proposed teaming arrangements or joint ventures will be accepted after the solicitation closing date and time.

Part 1: Price Submission: No page limit

1. Provide a breakdown of price to include Installation, Equipment and Materials, and Labor. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation, with attachments. The solicitation constitutes the model contract.

2. Insert proposed unit and prices in a separate document to match the CLIN structure as in RFQ and insert proposed price in the RFQ. Offerors shall round to the nearest cent (for example 1.02 not $1.0231) Quoters rejecting the terms and conditions may be excluded from consideration

Part 2: Technical Submission: Limited to no more than 15 pages total.

1. The Offeror shall provide valid and current certification and resumes for key personnel; to include certification in the following:

a. Honeywell Vindicator

b. Hirsch Velocity

c. PSG VICADS

d. Proof of offerors U.S. company using U.S. citizens for installation and testing.

To conform to the requirements listed in Technical Subfactor 1: Certifications of Key Personnel

All key personnel that are proposed to the United States Government within the proposal will be incorporated into the contact and will be binding. If any key personnel need to be changed the contractor is required to submit the replacement along with all required certifications and resume for approval by the Contracting Officer prior to making any adjustments.

Part 3: Past Performance Submission: Limited to no more than 15 pages total.

1. The Offeror shall submit Present/Past Performance Information (PPPI) for itself and any joint venture member. The Offeror may submit PPPI regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience and certification, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

2. Offerors shall submit past performance for two (2) previous electronic security system projects. The summary should explain what aspects of each contract are deemed recent and relevant as related to the requirements of this solicitation.

Failure to provide required relevancy description may impact the confidence rating.

3. Only references for contracts that are recent and relevant will be considered.

a. Recent: To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been completed during the past six (6) years from the month of issuance of this solicitation

b. Relevant: For a contract to be determined relevant, the scope of work must meet the following minimum criteria:

a. Two (2) electronic security system projects

b. Of the two (2) electronic security system projects, they must have shown at least one type of the following categories: Engineering development, Design, Procurement of Equipment, Configuration, Integration, Installation

4. Lack of any past performance will not automatically disqualify an offeror, but it is a factor that is considered in the

Best Value Performance Price Tradeoff Evaluation described in FAR 52.212-2.

The Government may also review the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIPRS), System for Award Management (SAM), Government customer interviews, applicable commercial clients, and any other source deemed necessary to obtain additional information that will be used in the evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance. The Government may contact references other than those identified by the Offeror and use information received to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance.

Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ): Offerors shall complete Section A of the PPQ (Attachment #4) and mail or email to all POC(s) the offeror has identified in the PPPI. The POC(s) will then complete the PPQ and send them directly to the Government representatives identified in the PPQ by e-mail, no later than five (5) workdays (not calendar days) prior to the solicitation due date. Offerors shall follow-up with respondents to ensure they have completed the PPQ and sent to 1 SOCONS/PKA. Once submitted, the information contained therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to the offeror. Include the completed Sections A of the PPQ in the Past Performance proposal Volume. Any PPQs submitted directly by an offeror will not be considered. Any PPQ document submitted in format other than the document at Attachment #4 will not be considered. It is the sole responsibility of the offeror to send out and track the completion of a PPQ to ensure it is received by the emails identified above before the proposal deadline.

In lieu of a Past/Present Performance Questionnaire, if a project is currently available in the Contractor Past Performance Reporting System (CPARS), the contractor may attach a copy of the evaluation with its reference list. Copies of CPARS reports will not count against page count/limit.

Addendum to 52.212-2 - Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers

Price, Technical, Past Performance

Technical and past performance, when combined, are more important than price.

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

Price Factor (STEP 1) The first (1st) step of the evaluation process is to evaluate prices and order all responsive quotes (total by price from lowest to highest).

Technical Factor (STEP 2) The second (2nd) step of the evaluation process is to evaluate technical acceptability. The first (1st) lowest priced responsive quote shall be evaluated for technical acceptability. The offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactor below, to determine if the offeror demonstrates an acceptable submission that meets the requirements listed below. The technical proposal addresses the following subfactor in sufficient detail. In the event that the first (1st) lowest priced quote does not yield an acceptable technical rating, the evaluation process will move to the next lowest offer and will continue until one

(1) technically acceptable quote is identified.

Past Performance (STEP 3) The third (3rd) step of the evaluation process will be to evaluate past performance of the first (1st lowest priced responsive quote that has been deemed technically acceptable. If the first lowest priced quote that was deemed technically acceptable does not have satisfactory past performance, the government will start back at step one (1) until the lowest price, technically acceptable, and responsive quote has satisfactory past performance. The Government will proceed to award to the vendor that adheres to the instructions to offerors, has an acceptable rating for the Technical Factor and has a past performance rating that is satisfactory. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

During all stages of the evaluation, the Government reserves the right to engage with one or multiple offerors but is not required to do so. Therefore, offerors should provide the best available pricing in their initial quote.

1. Price Evaluation:

a. To receive an acceptable rating for the Price Factor, the offeror's price must 1) adhere to all the requirements of 52.212-1 and 2) be determined fair and reasonable

b. Quotes will be ordered from lowest to highest

2. Technical Evaluation:

a. The lowest priced offer will be evaluated for technical acceptability. If the lowest priced offer is not determined technically acceptable, the next lowest offeror will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

The technical evaluation will continue until one offer is determined technically acceptable. Only the offeror determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for further evaluation.

b. Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactor below, to determine if the offeror demonstrates an acceptable submission that meets the requirements listed below. The technical proposal addresses the following subfactor in sufficient detail.

Subfactor 1: Certifications of Key Personnel Program Manager:

• Resume

Cybersecurity Personnel AND Facility Security Officer:

*One or both of these positions must possess the following certifications*

• Honeywell Vindicator Certified to Operate and Maintain Vindicator

• Hirsch Velocity Certified

• PSG VICADS Certified

*Both positions must have a resume submitted with the proposal*

• Resume

Offeror must provide the following:

• Proof of offerors U.S. company using U.S. citizens for installation and testing

The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical submission for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to the technical subfactor. To be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating for this subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Table M1

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Offerors shall provide copies of the above certifications for the key personnel identified. Failure to provide any of the certifications listed above may deem a proposal as unacceptable and eliminate that offer from competition.

3. Past Performance Evaluations:

The Government will evaluate the recency and relevancy of the quoters' provided past performance information, and other past performance information data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources to include but not limited to: Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and other databases.

RECENCY

Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency. Past performance will be considered recent if the scope of work meets the following minimum criteria:

• Two (2) efforts must have been completed during the past six (6) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

*The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent PPPI efforts submitted. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. *

RELEVANCY

Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy. Past performance will be considered relevant if the scope of work meets the following minimum criteria:

• Two (2) electronic security system projects of similar size and scope of the current requirement

• Of the two (2) electronic security system projects, they must have shown at least one type of the following categories: Engineering development, Design, Procurement of Equipment, Configuration, Integration, Installation

If a past performance effort meets both (2) of the minimum criteria, they will be deemed relevant.

If a past performance effort meets one (1) of the minimum criteria, they will be deemed somewhat relevant.

If a past performance effort meets none (0) of the minimum criteria, they will be deemed not relevant.

Confidence that the offeror can or cannot successfully perform all required services within the SOW will be based upon the past performance information submitted by the offeror. It is recommended that the offeror submits any and all documentation addressing adverse past performance ratings for recent and relevant contracts. Failure to do so may result in the Government assigning an unfavorable rating for this factor. Offerors that do not have a record of recent and relevant past performance will be deemed not relevant

Quality Assessment: All recent past performance that is determined to be relevant will be reviewed to determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance. The Government may contact the people identified in the offeror’s Submitted PPQ attachments to obtain assessments of the quality of the offeror’s performance of the effort, including the number and severity of any identified problems and the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken.

One of the following confidence ratings will be assigned to the evaluated offeror:

Adjectival Rating Description 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.

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

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

Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirements may not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Past performance regarding minor members of Joint Ventures will be considered in accordance with the member's share of the prospective contract.

Adverse Past Performance: Offerors will be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractors have not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information.