Attachment 4_RFO 52.212-2 ADDENDUM, Section M.pdf

Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services 03 Apr 2026

ADDENDUM TO RFO PROVISION 52.212-2: Paragraph (a) is tailored as follows:

Evaluation:

IAW RFO 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 will be used to evaluate offers:

1. Price

2. Technical

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive, best value continuum using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. Technical elements will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable for each solicitation response. Qualifications will be clear, and objectives will be outlined in the RFQ. The evaluation process shall proceed as indicated below:

Evaluation Approach:

Step 1: All contractors will be evaluated for responsiveness. Responsiveness is determined by verifying compliance with RFO 52.212-1 and its addendum.

Step 2: All responsive contractors will be ordered, by price, from the lowest to the highest Total Evaluated Price (TEP). A contractor's TEP is depicted in Attachment 2, Quote Schedule Worksheet. The TEP is comprised of the total contract value (base and all options) plus the 6-month option available at RFO 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. Pricing for RFO 52.217-8 is determined by taking the "amount" of the most recent option year exercised and dividing it by two (2).

Step 3: Technical evaluations will start with the lowest TEP offer and continue until two (2) solicitation responses are determined to be technically acceptable, or until all solicitation responses have been evaluated.

Step 4. The Government will make a determination of price fair and reasonable.

Evaluation Factors for Award:

Price Foreword: The government will evaluate offers for award purposes based on their TEP. The government may determine that a solicitation response is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

1. Price:

a.) Initially, solicitation responses shall be ordered from lowest to highest TEP, as previously defined.

b.) For evaluation purposes, RFO 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options and Pricing will be evaluated and applied to this evaluation. To evaluate the impact of clause RFO 52.217-8, the pricing proposed for option four (4) will be utilized to calculate a six (6) month extension price.

Evaluation of options will not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

c.) The TEP will be evaluated to determine whether it is reasonable. A reasonable price/cost represents a price/cost that provides best value to the government, considering market prices, the technical and functional capabilities of the contractor, and risk. Additionally, the government reserves the right to, but is not required to, conduct a price realism analysis on offers that appear to be exceptionally low and not supported by the contractor's technical approach. In instances where a contractor's proposed price(s) appears exceptionally low, contractors may be requested to address this disparity by providing evidence of their capability and/or performance at similar price(s). The burden of proof as to price credibility rests with the contractor. An exceptionally or unrealistically low offer that's left unexplained may pose an unacceptable risk to the government and may be a reason to reject a contractor's solicitation response.

d.) The government anticipates adequate price competition and intends to award a contract without exchanges with respective contractors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct exchanges if deemed in its best interest.

2. Technical:

a.) The technical volume will be evaluated as either acceptable or unacceptable for each subfactor.

i. Acceptable is defined as: "Required documents clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation".

ii. Unacceptable is defined as: "Required documents do not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation".

b.) The technical is comprised of four (4) subfactors, as listed below. An overall technical rating will be assigned; failure to be assigned an acceptable in any technical subfactor will render the enter factor unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. Only those responses determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of interchanges, will be considered for award. However, the contractor is reminded that the government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial solicitation response, as received, without interchanges, and may conduct interchanges will all, some, or none of the contractors.

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria Subfactor 1: Technical Approach Standard of Acceptance: The quote will be rated Acceptable if the technical approach provides a clear and convincing narrative that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the PWS requirements. The approach must detail how the quoter will ensure successful performance, rather than simply restating the PWS. General statements such as "standard procedures will be used" are insufficient.

Subfactor 2: A Cutover Plan/Transition Plan Standard of Acceptance: The quote will be rated Acceptable if the submitted Cutover/Transition Plan (IAW PWS Sections

4.3 and 4.4) is logical and comprehensive.

The plan must, at a minimum, include:

• A realistic timeline for the transition.

• Clear identification of key milestones and tasks.

• A description of testing procedures to validate service functionality before, during, and after cutover.

• Credible risk mitigation and rollback/fallback procedures to prevent service interruption.

Subfactor 3: A Service Routing Diagram and Network Architecture

• Standard of Acceptance: The quote will be rated Acceptable if the submitted Service Routing Diagram (IAW PWS Section 5.1.20) is clear, technically sufficient, and accurately maps to the PWS requirements. The diagram must:

• Clearly illustrate the proposed physical and logical network architecture.

• Accurately identify demarcation points.

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach Technical Approach shall not simply rephrase or restate PWS or contain general statements such as "Standard procedures will be employed". Quotes shall provide convincing rationale addressing how the technical portion of the Quote meets solicitation requirements.

Subfactor 2: A Cutover Plan/Transition Plan The Government will evaluate the Cutover Plan for its feasibility, risk mitigation strategies, and ability to ensure continuous, uninterrupted dial tone and data connectivity during the transition period. The plan must clearly outline timelines, testing procedures, and emergency rollback/fallback strategies.

Subfactor 3: The Government will evaluate the diagram to verify the quoter’s proposed network architecture meets the physical and logical routing requirements of the PWS. The evaluation will assess the clarity of the routing paths, the location of demarcation points, and the adequacy of proposed redundancy/survivability measures to prevent single points of failure.

• Demonstrate sufficient redundancy and survivability to meet the availability requirements of the PWS. A generic or non-specific diagram will be deemed Unacceptable.

Subfactor 4: Interconnection Agreements (CLECs Compliance)

• Standard of Acceptance: The quote will be rated Acceptable if it meets the following conditions (IAW PWS Section 4.3):

• If the quoter is a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC), they must provide documented proof of current and valid Interconnection Agreements that demonstrate the legal and technical authority to perform the required services at the specified location.

• If the quoter is the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC), they must include a statement affirming their ILEC status.

• Failure to provide the required documentation or statement will result in an Unacceptable rating for this subfactor.

Subfactor 5: Mission Essential Plan (Continuity of Operations)

• Standard of Acceptance: The quote will be rated Acceptable if the submitted Mission Essential Plan demonstrates a comprehensive and feasible approach to maintaining continuity of operations and expediting repairs in accordance with PWS Section 2.2.4. Specifically, the submitted plan will be evaluated to

Subfactor 4: The Government will evaluate the documentation provided to ensure the quoter has the legal and technical authority to interface the existing infrastructure. (Note:

If the quoter is the ILEC, a statement affirming this status is sufficient).

Subfactor 5: Basis for Rejection: The quote will be rated Unacceptable if the submitted plan fails to adequately address TSP/RPL compliance, treats all outages with identical priority, or lacks defined communication protocols for critical incidents.

verify it meets the following minimum standards:

• TSP/RPL Compliance: The plan will be reviewed to confirm it clearly articulates a methodology for strict adherence to Government-provided Telecommunications Services Priority (TSP) and Restoration Priority List (RPL) mandates during service restoration.

• Communication Protocols: The proposed communication procedures will be assessed to ensure they provide credible assurance of immediate outage notification, status reporting, and crisis coordination with the Government Point of Contact (POC).

• Restoration Prioritization: The operational narrative will be evaluated to determine if it reflects realistic and actionable procedures for prioritizing the troubleshooting and repair of mission-critical services over routine maintenance during emergencies, serious, or catastrophic outages.

(End of provision)