Attachment 5 - 52.212-2 - Evaluation Addendum.pdf

Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Feb 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 Quoters whose quote conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government which consists of Price, Technical Acceptability, and Past Performance. The following factors will be used to evaluate quotes:

1. Price

2. Technical

3. Past Performance

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. Past Performance will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable. 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(s).

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, on the Price Schedule Tab. 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 quote and continue until three (3) solicitation responses are determined to be technically acceptable, or until all solicitation responses have been evaluated, whichever comes first.

Step 4. The solicitation responses determined to be technically acceptable will then be evaluated for past performance until three (3) technically acceptable solicitation responses have been determined to have acceptable past performance or until all solicitation responses have been evaluated, whichever comes first. Steps three (3) and four (4) will continue until at least three (3) solicitation responses have been determined acceptable in technical and have acceptable past performance, or until all solicitation responses have been evaluated.

Step 5. The Government will make a determination of price fair and reasonable.

Evaluation Factors for Award:

Price Foreword: The government will evaluate quotes 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).

Volume I 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 base and all options will be averaged by adding all together and dividing by two (2).

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 quotes 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 quote 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.

Volume II 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 volume is comprised of two (2) 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 exchanges, 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 exchanges, and may conduct exchanges will all, some, or none of the contractors.

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria Subfactor 1: Education/Experience:

Offerors are to provide a copy of their Bachelor’s degree, Master's degree, or transcript from an accredited university in one of the fields mentioned below (i-iv). If the offeror provides a copy of a degree/transcript from one of the fields below, offerors must also submit a resume illustrating at least one years’ relevant work experience within one of the fields mentioned below (i-iv).

i. Museum Studies

ii. History, with a concentration in Modern American

Military History, Aviation History or General U.S.

History.

iii. Graphics Design, with a concentration in Exhibit Design or General Graphics Design.

iv. Collections, Exhibits

*If an offeror does not have a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in one of the designated fields above, the contractor shall provide a resume validating five (5) years of relevant work experience within one of the fields above (i-iv).

The Government will evaluate accurate documentation demonstrating education and/or experience outlined in Subfactor 1.

Subfactor 2: Contractors Capability Statement:

Offerors must provide a written capability statement demonstrating the knowledge specified in PWS paragraph 2, Experience: “Contractor must have comprehensive knowledge of military related artifacts, Air Force and general military history, collection management practices and electronic databases, exhibit preparation, and professional museum experience.”

The Government will evaluate the quoter’s capability statement to ensure clear, convincing rationale and detailed experience that explains how the quoter will ensure successful contract performance.

Volume III Past Performance

Recent and relevant past performance is defined as past performance occurring within the last five (5) years and with a period of performance of six (6) months or more. Relevant past performance is defined as past performance providing candidates for services similar in scope to this requirement and complexity. The Government will consider relevancy, recency, extent of the past performance and the size and complexity of the past performance relative to this solicitation’s requirement submitted by quoters as well as any information gathered by the Contracting Officer. In the case of a contractor without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the contractor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Quoter shall be determined to have unknown past performance. Unknown or neutral past performance, in the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered acceptable a.) An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent.

Recent contracts are contracts which have been performed for at least 6 months and within the last 5 years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. Contract performance that does not meet these criteria will not be considered or evaluated.

b.) Relevant performance includes a list of no more than three (3) of the most recent and relevant contracts performed for Government agencies and commercial customers demonstrating that they have performed similar work in the past (within the last 5 years). The Past Performance must have the following information:

i. Contractor’s Name

ii. Contractor’s point of Contact (email & phone number)

iii. Project Title

iv. Detailed Description of Work (Performed by the offeror)

v. Contract Number

vi. Contract Dollar Value

vii. Period of Performance

viii. Name of Contracting Officer or POC including information (email & phone number)

Past Performance Relevancy:

Relevancy Definition Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

Past Performance Acceptability:

Definition Rating Based on the Quoter's performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Quoter will successfully perform the required effort, or the Quoter's performance record is unknown.

Acceptable

Based on the Quoter's performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Quoter will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unacceptable

(End of provision)