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

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(JAN 2017):

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD.

1. Addendum to 52.212-1(a), NAICS code and small business size standard. The NAICS code is 611699 and the size standard is 16.5 M for this requirement.

1.2. Addendum to 52.212-1(b), Submission of offers. Submit signed and dated offers no later than Friday 3 January 2025, 1000 Alaska Standard Time to:

354 CONS/PKB

Attention: A1C Kai Croghan and SSgt Ryan Baudouin 2310 Central Ave. Building 2258 Eielson AFB, AK, 99702

1.3. Offerors are responsible for submitting offers, revisions, and amendments to the solicitation so as to reach identified personnel by the date and time specified in this solicitation.

1.3.1. Only electronic versions of proposals will only be accepted. Paper copies of offers will be rejected and not be considered for award. Offers may be submitted in the following way:

1.3.1.1. Submit offers electronically to the Government via email to kai.croghan@us.af.mil or ryan.baudoin@us.af.mil. All documents shall be submitted in .pdf format. The title of the documents shall include the volume number and offeror’s CAGE code (i.e., “Vol 1 Price CAGE#”).

1.4. All offers shall be complete, clearly presented, and contain sufficient detail for effective evaluation as detailed in Addendum 52.212-2 of this solicitation. Offers shall be neat, indexed (cross-indexed as appropriate) and assembled in an orderly manner. Elaborate artwork, expensive visual, and other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired. Offers shall only contain information that is relevant to this solicitation.

1.5. Page Size, Format and Limit

1.5.1. A page is defined as each face of an 8 ½” X 11” document containing information. Page limitations shall be treated as maximums and shall apply to all electronic files. Pages in excess of the maximum page limits defined below will not be evaluated.

1.5.2. For the purposes of formatting, font size shall not be less than 12 pitch.

1.5.3. Pages shall be numbered sequentially in each volume and identify the solicitation number.

1.5.4. Page limits shall be considered maximums. Pages in excess of the maximum will not be read or evaluated. When Evaluation Notices (ENs) are necessary, the Government will issue them by electronic means to prospective offerors. Page limitations may be placed on responses to ENs and such limitations will be provided at the time the EN is issued.

mailto:kai.croghan@us.af.mil mailto:ryan.baudoin@us.af.mil

1.5.5. Indexing. Electronic files should be located in appropriately labelled files so as to easily discern each volume as outlined in 1.3.1.1. – 1.3.1.3. Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents identify the subparagraphs within that volume. The table of contents is not included in the maximum page limitation.

1.6. OFFER PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS: To assure timely and equitable evaluation of the offers, the offeror must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including format, terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

Offerors are cautioned to follow the detailed instructions fully and carefully, as the Government reserves the right to make an award based on initial offers received, without discussion of such offers. Non-responsive offers will not be evaluated.

The response shall include four parts: 1) Cover Page; 2) Volume I – Price; 3) Volume II – Technical, and 4) Volume III- Past Performance to be eligible for award. The content of each part is discussed below.

1.6.1. COVER PAGE. There is no page limitation for the Cover Page.

1.6.1.1. Solicitation Number

1.6.1.2. Solicitation Date and Time specified for receipt of offers

1.6.1.3. Company name

1.6.1.4. Company address and remit to address if different than mailing address

1.6.1.5. Company point of contact (s)

1.6.1.6. Company point of contact(s) e-mail address

1.6.1.7. Company point of contact(s) telephone numbers

1.6.1.8. SAM registration expiration date

1.6.1.9. CAGE code

1.6.1.10. UEI number

1.6.1.11. Registration confirmation for NAICS code 611699

1.6.1.12. Offer Acceptance Period.

1.7. VOLUME I – PRICE: There is no page limit for Volume I. Offerors shall submit the following information in Volume I:

1.7.1. A statement the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation in its entirety. Offerors shall clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation and provide accompanying rational.

1.7.2. A statement acknowledging all solicitation amendments, if any were issued.

1.7.3. Proposed unit prices and extended total prices for Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 0001. All unit prices shall be rounded to no more than two places after the decimal point. The extended amount shall equal the unit price multiplied by the quantity of each unit.

1.7.4. Completed representations and certifications at FAR Provision 52.212-3 and all other provisions and clauses that require fill-in information. See FAR 52.212-3 for those representations and certifications the offer shall complete electronically.

1.9. VOLUME II – TECHNICAL: Limited to 40 pages

The Technical Volume shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical Factor as defined in Addendum 52.212-2(3)(b).

Proposals shall not simply rephrase or restate the Performance Work Statement (PWS) or contain general statements such as “Standard procedures will be employed.” Proposals shall provide convincing rationale addressing how the technical portion of the offer meets solicitation requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of the offeror’s experience. The Government will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offer. The offer shall not simply rephrase or restate the PWS. Statements that the Offeror understands, can, or will comply with the PWS (including referenced publications, technical data, etc.); paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof (including applicable publications, technical data, etc.); and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” etc., will be considered unacceptable and will negatively impact the Offeror’s rating under the Technical factor. Elaborate artwork, expensive visual, and other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired.

1.9.1. The Technical Volume shall be comprised of two parts.

(1) Technical Capabilities

(2) Résumé

1.9.2. Technical Capabilities.

1.9.2.1. Offerors shall submit a Technical Capabilities Package that clearly demonstrates offerors’ understanding of the technical requirements of the PWS. The Technical Capabilities Package shall include a breakdown of how the subject matter expects will fulfill the requirements of sections 4.1 – 4.6 of the PWS.

1.9.3. Résumés

1.9.3.1. Offerors shall submit a résumé that demonstrates compliance with the minimum qualifications set forth in Section 4.1 – 4.6 of the attached PWS.

1.10. VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE – Limited to no more than two pages per contract listed.

Offerors shall submit contracts for the same or similar services as described in the PWS.

1.10.1. Offerors shall submit past performance information on no more than five recent and relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies or commercial customers where offerors performed as the prime contractor that demonstrate offerors’ ability to successfully perform the scope and breadth of the requirements described in the PWS for this solicitation. Past performance information submitted in excess of the first five contracts submitted will not be evaluated.

1.10.2. Offerors with no same or similar past performance shall include this information in their past performance information.

1.10.4. Subcontractor Consent. Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Offerors shall submit in their Past Performance Volume a signed consent letter from all proposed subcontractors consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

1.10.5. Offerors shall submit the following information for each contract submitted in their past performance volume:

1.10.5.1. Company/Division name

1.10.5.2. Product/Service

1.10.5.3. Contracting Agency/Customer

1.10.5.4. Contract Number

1.10.5.5. Contract Dollar Value

1.10.5.6. Period of Performance

1.10.5.7. Verified, up-to-date name, address, e-mail address, telephone number of the Government evaluator, contracting officer or customer POC responsible for procuring your services.

1.10.5.8. Explanation of how the scope of the referenced contract meets the relevancy definitions in this solicitation. Identify what elements of each contract are deemed relevant to this solicitation and indicate what percentage of service was performed by the offeror (prime), subcontractor (if applicable).

1.10.5.9. Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions.

1.10.5.10. Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable by the customer or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions, the resolution(s) implemented, and results.

1.10.6. Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 4). Offerors shall complete Section 1, Contract Identification and send the Past Performance Questionnaires to their contract POCs listed in their Past Performance Volume. Past performance questionnaires received in excess to the first five contracts listed in the Past Performance Volume will not be evaluated.

1.10.6.1. Offerors shall indicate in their past performance information, which POCs past performance questionnaires were sent to and confirm that the questionnaires were submitted.

1.10.6.2. Once questionnaires are completed by the POCs, the information contained in the questionnaires is considered source selection sensitive and not releasable to you, the offeror.

1.10.6.3. Questionnaires shall be e-mailed by POCs directly to A1C Kai Croghan and SSgt Ryan Baudouin at kai.croghan@us.af.mil and ryan.baudouin@us.af.mil.

1.10.6.4. Completed questionnaires received or routed through the offeror, subcontractor or teaming contractor will not be accepted.

mailto:kai.croghan@us.af.mil mailto:ryan.baudouin@us.af.mil

1.10.6.5. Offerors are responsible for sending and tracking the timely completion and submittal of past performance questionnaires. The responsibility to send out the questionnaires rests solely with the offeror and shall not be delegated to any other entity.

1.10.6.6. Offerors shall ensure questionnaires are submitted to A1C Kai Croghan and SSgt Ryan Baudouin no later than the solicitation closing date and time. Offerors shall also inform POCs of any extensions to the solicitation closing date and time.

1.11. Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(c), Period for Acceptance of Offers. This paragraph is tailored to read as follows: “The Offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm from the date specified for receipt of offers through 28 February 2025.”

1.12. Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(f), Late submissions, modifications, revisions, and withdrawal of offers. This paragraph is tailored to read as follows: Offerors are responsible for submitting electronic offers by the solicitation due date and time. Offers received after the solicitation due date and time are considered late and will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f).

(End of Addendum)

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

1. This acquisition will utilize the best value approach, in which the Government seeks to award to an offeror who provides the greatest confidence that they will meet the Government’s requirements affordably. The Best Value technique for this acquisition will be Subjective Tradeoff, where technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price.”

Below is a synopsis of the evaluation steps; the evaluation process is defined in more detail immediately following the synopsis.

2. The first (1st) step of the evaluation process is to review the cover page.

2.1. The second (2nd) step of the evaluation process is to evaluate prices and rank all responsive proposals by price from lowest to highest.

2.2. The evaluation team will then proceed to the third (3rd) step. The first three (3) of the lowest priced responsive proposals shall be evaluated for technical acceptability. In the event that the first three evaluated proposals do not yield an offer with an acceptable technical rating, the evaluation process will continue in increments of the next three (3) lowest priced responsive proposals until a technically acceptable proposal is identified.

2.3. After technical evaluations conclude, the fourth (4th) evaluation step begins. For those offerors deemed technically acceptable, past performance will be evaluated for the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal. If the lowest priced evaluated offer has been determined technically acceptable, and is judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

2.4. If the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating, the next lowest priced technically acceptable offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue in order by price until an offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating or until all offerors are evaluated. The Contracting Officer shall then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision.

3. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications. The Government intends to award a contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), as supplemented, whose offer conforms to solicitation requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the solicitation and is judged, based on the evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government intends to award to the offeror who in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall value in response to the solicitation requirements.

3. The Government intends to evaluate offers and make an award without discussions. Offers that are unrealistic in terms of price or technical acceptability may be rejected at any time during the evaluation process. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their written proposals (e.g., defining the relevance of the offeror’s technical information and adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor clerical errors.

Any such exchange between the offeror and the Government will be for clarification only and will not constitute discussions within the meaning of FAR 15.306(a). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, performance and price standpoint.

4. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

4.1. All offeror cover pages will be reviewed for completeness in accordance with the requirements stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items to determine the offeror responsive or non-responsive. Only those offers determined complete and responsive will be considered for further evaluation.

5. FACTOR 1: PRICE: All offers will be ranked by price:

5.1. Offers conforming to all requirements of this solicitation will be ordered from highest to lowest based on Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Total Evaluated Price will be calculated as follows:

5.1.1. Total Evaluated

5.1.1.2. Unit prices shall be used in the event that extended prices are calculated incorrectly.

5.2. Prices will be evaluated for completeness, fair and reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing. Offers whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award.

Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.2.1. Completeness: The Government will review pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with the solicitation.

5.2.2. Reasonableness: The Government will use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

5.2.2. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each offer to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different CLINs for the same or similar services in the same or similar quantities with respect to option pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting

Officer determines that the prices are significantly unbalanced or if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

6. FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL: The first three lowest priced offers will be evaluated for technical acceptability. If none of the first three lowest priced offers are determined technically acceptable, the technical evaluation will continue in increments of three until all offers are evaluated, or until the Contracting Officer opens discussions if determined in the best interest of the Government. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for further evaluation.

6.1 The rating assigned to this factor will be based on the offeror’s technical volume. The validity and thoroughness of the offeror’s technical volume will be evaluated as specific evidence of the offeror’s understanding and capability to perform this requirement. An overall rating will be assigned; failure to be assigned an acceptable rating in any element will render the entire technical volume unacceptable:

6.2. Evaluators shall assign a rating which falls within one of the following definitions according to the degree which the offeror’s technical proposal meets the minimum requirement described below:

6.2.1. Acceptable: Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

6.2.2. Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

6.3. Technical Capabilities Package. The Technical Capabilities Package will be rated acceptable if it meets all the requirements of paragraphs 6.3.1 through 6.3.2. below.

6.3.1. The Technical Capabilities Package clearly demonstrates a reasonable approach to managing and staffing the contract based on the requirements of the PWS.

6.3.2. The Technical Capabilities Package shall include a breakdown of how the subject matter expects will fulfill the requirements of sections 4.1 – 4.2 of the PWS.

6.4. Résumés

6.4.1. Offerors shall submit a résumé that demonstrates compliance with the minimum qualifications set forth in Section 4.1 – 4.6 of the attached PWS.

7. Only technically acceptable proposals will move on to the Past Performance phase of the evaluation.

8. FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE: The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy and quality of the offerors’ provided past performance information, past performance questionnaires received and other past performance information data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources may include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases.

8.1. Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency; all performance prior to three years from the date of the solicitation or not yet performed on the date of this solicitation will not be evaluated.

8.1.1. The definition of recent as related to this solicitation includes performance within the last three years from the issue date of this solicitation.

8.2. Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy and shall be assigned one of the relevancy definition ratings as described below when the offeror has identified and demonstrated what elements of each contract are deemed relevant to this solicitation and indicate what percentage of service was performed by the offeror (prime), subcontractor (if applicable) and teaming contractor (if applicable).

The final determination of the identified and demonstrated relevancy elements of each contract will be the decision of the government.

8.2.1. The primary aspect of relevancy, as it pertains to this solicitation, is based on the similarity of services performed in the past. Relevance for Past Performance will be assessed against the following criteria:

(1) Provided a Subject Matter Experts with 3 or more years of experience

8.2.2. Definitions of relevancy are as follows:

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

(1) Provided a Subject Matter Experts with 3 or more years of experience

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

(1) Provided a Subject Matter Experts with 2 years of experience

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

(1) Provided a Subject Matter Experts with one year of experience

8.2.2.4. NOT RELEVANT. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(1) Provided a Subject Matter Expert with less than one year of experience.

8.3 Finally, Past Performance will be evaluated for quality and assigned one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings based on the information provided in the Past Performance Volume, other past performance information data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, may include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, and questionnaires received. Performance confidence assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood for the Government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based upon the offeror’s past performance information.

8.3.1 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;

8.3.2 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;

8.3.3 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 performance; and

8.3.4 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;

8.3.5 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.

8.3.5.1 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.

8.4. 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 not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

8.5. If the lowest priced evaluated offer has been determined technically acceptable, and is judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

8.6. If the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating, the next lowest priced technically acceptable offeror will be evaluated, and the process will continue in order by price until an offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence rating or until all offerors are evaluated. The Contracting Officer shall then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision.

(End of Addendum)