Attachment 4 - Addendum to RFO 52.212-1 and -2.pdf

RFO Provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (DEVIATION 2026- O0038, Feb 2026) applies to this acquisition and the following ADDENDUM applies:

1. Adherence to Instructions: The vendor must follow the instructions contained herein in providing their quotation. Vendors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a quotation being ineligible for award.

2. Exceptions to Terms and Conditions: Vendors must clearly identify any exception to solicitation terms and conditions and provide accompanying rationale.

3. Solicitation Face Page: Complete blocks 12 (if applicable) and 17a (to include your CAGE code in the “CODE” box) of the SF1449. In doing so, the vendor accedes to the terms and conditions as written in the SOLICITATION, with attachments. The SOLICITATION constitutes the model agreement.

4. Period of Acceptance of Quotations: Paragraph 52.212-1(c), Period for Acceptance of Quotation, is tailored as follows: “The vendor agrees to hold the prices in its quotation firm for 90 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of quotations.”

5. Registration in System for Award Management (SAM): In order to be eligible for award, vendors must be registered in SAM at https://sam.gov. Award shall not be delayed due to as unregistered or inactive SAM account.

6. CMMC 2.0 Self-Assessment must be completed in SPRS. (See attachment for instructions). As a result of new policy beginning 10 November 2025, we would like to inform you of your responsibility to comply with the DoD's CMMC 2.0 framework at Level 1. IAW R-DFARS 252.204-7021, CMMC is the DoD's program to verify that all contractors have implemented the required cybersecurity standards to protect Controlled Unclassified Information. FCI is information, not intended for public release, that is provided by or generated for the Government under a contract to develop or deliver a product or service. Your organization's CMMC status will be verified to be active and accurate in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) module of PIEE. For assistance, please review Attachment: PIEE CMMC Level 1 Help Guide.

7. Quotation – General Information:

(a) The response shall consist of:

i. Completed Price List

ii. Technical Submission

iii. Past Performance Information

(b) Documents must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

i. Solicitation Requirements

ii. Evaluation factors for award in RFO Provision 52.212-2 EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS

iii. Quotation Submittal Quotations and any other documents must be submitted via email to the

Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist.

8. Price Quotation:

(a) Quotation Guidance:

i. Enter your pricing into Attachment #2: Price List as noted in the following sub-bullets:

• Unit Price & Amount Vendors are to enter their quoted “Unit Price” amount for each item for all 5 years. Year 1 will be effective at award with Years 2-5 to be updated annually.

• Total Quoted Amount Vendors shall total the “Amount” of all pricing to determine the Total Quoted Amount

• Solicitation Provisions Vendors are to ensure that they have completed all Solicitation

Provisions, including but not limited to 52.219-1 Small Business Program Representations.

(b) Electronic Copy: Shall submit a copy of the completed Price List and Solicitation, to include any solicitation provisions.

Addendum to RFO 52.212-1 and -2 - FA930126Q0008 Page 1 of 5 https://sam.gov/

9. Technical Submission: Each vendor shall submit a technical submittal highlighting their ability to meet all technical requirements in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and fulfilling requirements as described in the Addendum to RFO 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors and RFO 52.212-2, Evaluation

(a) Electronic Copy: Must be in Adobe (pdf)

(b) Page Limits: Submit no more than twenty-five (25) pages (excluding cover page and signature/company information page)

10. Past Performance Information:

(a) Form Guidance:

i. Contractors shall provide at least 2 and no more than 3 completed Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment #5) from relevant references for awards that highlight recency, relevancy, and quality. The Contracting Office has authority to verify the legitimacy of all submitted Past Performance Questionnaires. This past performance shall demonstrate the ability to perform the proposed effort. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. All past performances shall be recent (within 6 years), relevant, and similar in nature to this requirement. Refer to 52.212-2 Evaluation for determining if submissions meet the definition of current, recent, and relevant. Vendors are required to thoroughly explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as exceeded performance periods.

ii. Not having past performance history is not a disqualification factor but will be considered when selecting the best value offer. Offerors with no past performance will receive a Not applicable/Neutral (N) rating.

(b) Electronic Copy: Submit completed and signed Past Performance Questionnaires.

(End Addendum to RFO 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors)

Addendum to RFO 52.212-1 and -2 - FA930126Q0008 Page 2 of 5

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (DEVIATION 2026-O0038, Feb 2026)

The Government will execute an award resulting from this solicitation to the responsible vendor whose quotation conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate quotations:

(1) TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

(2) PAST PERFORMANCE

(3) PRICE

In the integrated assessment upon which the award will be made, the non-cost factors of Technical Acceptability and Past Performance shall be weighed more heavily than Price. The nature of this service demands a contractor with proven expertise, and prioritizing price alone risks compromising health and safety.

Past performance is also critical, as contractors with historical success with the performance requirements and who can operate independently offer significant efficiency gains.

A written notice of award or acceptance of a quotation mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful vendor within the time for acceptance specified in the quotation, shall result in a binding agreement without further action by either party. Before the quotation's specified expiration time, the Government may accept a quotation, whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

By submission of its quotation in accordance with the instructions provided in RFO 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors” the vendor accedes to the terms of this solicitation and all such vendors shall be treated equally except for their prices, technical submissions, and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a quotation being determined non-responsive. Award will be made to the responsible vendor whose response conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the solicitation and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described herein. Unbalanced, inaccurate, or incomplete price quotes may be grounds for eliminating a quote from competition. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable.

BASIS FOR AWARD: This is a competitive, best value tradeoff acquisition to establish a Basic Ordering Agreement. The Government will evaluate all responses against the factors listed below and award to the responsible offeror whose response is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

A. Price Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for fairness and reasonableness.

B. Technical Capability Evaluation. The Government will evaluate the technical submission on an ‘Acceptable’ or ‘Unacceptable’ basis. A response must receive an ‘Acceptable’ rating to be considered for award. The offeror’s technical submission will be rated ‘Acceptable’ or ‘Unacceptable’ as defined within the table provided below.

Table - Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Acceptable Quotation clearly reflects ability to fulfill the technical requirements of the solicitation and PWS (Attachment

#1) with details including, but not limited to:

- Personnel Qualifications: Evidence of relevant technical certifications for mechanics (e.g., Automotive Service Excellence (ASE), manufacturer-specific training from John Deere/Honda

- Technical Understanding: Displayed capability of the routine and preventative maintenance requirements for the John Deere Gator and Honda Pioneer vehicles IAW the PWS.

Unacceptable Quotation does not clearly reflect ability to meet the technical requirements of the solicitation and PWS

Addendum to RFO 52.212-1 and -2 - FA930126Q0008 Page 3 of 5

C. Past Performance Assessment: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance for recency, relevancy, and quality, assigning one of the ratings defined in the "Past Performance Ratings/Definitions" table. The evaluation will review the submissions of at least two (2) and no more than 3 completed Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment #5), of comparable Utility Task Vehicle Maintenance work.

The Government shall seek recent and relevant performance information based on (1) the past efforts provided by the Prime Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to provide for the Utility Task Vehicle Maintenance and Repair requirement, based on the offerors demonstrated record of performance. The contractor is responsible for providing sufficient information with their past performance record that reflects capability in accordance with the table below. The offeror’s Past Performance Assessment will evaluate recency, relevancy, and quality. Recency is within the last 6 years, relevant present/past performance efforts are those that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities required by this solicitation. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful past performance assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating ‘Not Applicable’, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral). Past performance efforts will be evaluated using the scale below.

Past Performance Ratings/Definitions

1. Award Decision: The award will be made to the offeror within the competitive range whose response represents the best value, with non-cost factors weighed more heavily than price. To arrive at a best value decision, the Government will first evaluate responses for technical acceptability. For all technically acceptable responses, the Government will then conduct a tradeoff analysis of Past Performance and Price. The Government may award to a higher-priced offeror if it is determined that the benefit of its superior past performance is worth the additional price, or an award may be made to a lower-priced offeror if their past performance is not considered to be worth a price premium.

D. Vendor Responsibilities: Vendors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in

Quality Assessment Rating

Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E) During the award period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all award requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

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

GOOD (G) During the award period, contractor is meeting (or met) all award requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action. Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

SATISFACTORY (S) During the award period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all award requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

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

MARGINAL (M) During the award period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some award requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

UNSATISFACTORY(U) During the award period, contractor performance is failing/fail to meet most award requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required. Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform

NOT APPLICABLE/

NEUTRAL (N)

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect.

Addendum to RFO 52.212-1 and -2 - FA930126Q0008 Page 4 of 5

52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors. Vendors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their quote (for example, the relevance of past performance information) 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 interchanges and the contracting officer reserves the right to award without the opportunity for quote revision.

E. Government Discretion Regarding Interchanges: The Government intends to award without Interchanges with respective vendors in accordance with RFO 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors – Competitive Acquisitions. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct Interchanges if deemed in its best interest. Interchanges may take place regarding any portion of the quotation. The Government may conduct Interchanges with one, some, none or all vendors at its discretion. Interchanges do not require a distinction between whether the Interchange results in a change to a quotation or only clarifies an administrative matter or quotation mistake. The Government has discretion to evaluate all quote submissions before inciting Interchanges with vendors (through Interchange Notices or “INs”), and vendors do not have to be offered an opportunity to revise their quotation through a Final Quotation Revision (FQR). If, during the evaluation period, the Simplified Acquisition Team determines it to be in the best interest of the Government to hold Interchanges, vendor responses to INs and the FQR (if requested by the Government) will be considered in making the award decision.

End Addendum to RFO 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Item

Addendum to RFO 52.212-1 and -2 - FA930126Q0008 Page 5 of 5