Attachment - 6_Addendum_to_FAR_52.212-1_and-2.pdf

Attachment- “Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and FAR 52.212-2” to FA9300-25-R-6001

Attachment – “Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and FAR 52.212-2

Note: This solicitation attachment provides addendums to two provisions. Therefore, this attachment will NOT remain in the ensuing contract award.

FAR Provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (Mar 2023) applies to this acquisition and the following ADDENDUM applies:

The following words “offer”, “offeror”, and “proposal” shall have the same meaning as “quotation”, “vendor”, and “quote”, respectively.

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), 17a (to include your CAGE code), and 30a, b, and c of the SF1449. In doing so, the vendor accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the SOLICITATION, with attachments. The SOLICITATION constitutes the model contract.

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 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of quotations.”

5. Registration in System for Award Management (SAM): Potential offerors are reminded they must: Be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov with a current registration to be eligible for award; ensure that all representations and certifications are completed in SAM for the applicable Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) provisions; and submit representations and certifications information with the proposal to the Contracting Officer if applicable.

6. Quotation – General Information:

(a) The Quote shall consist of three (3) separate parts:

i. Part I - Price Proposal

ii. Part II - Technical Proposal

iii. Part III - Past Performance

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

i. Solicitation Requirements (CLINs and SOW) and Government standards and regulations pertaining to the SOW

ii. Proposed schedule/Period of Performance in relation to each CLIN

iii. Evaluation factors for award in FAR Provision 52.212-2 EVALUATION --

COMMERCIAL ITEMS of the solicitation

iv. The following sub-bullets apply to ALL three (3) quotation parts.

• Page Margins When printed, all documents shall be formatted to print with 1” margins on all sides.

• Font & Spacing The font of all documents shall be Times New Roman font size 12 point or larger. All documents shall be single-spaced.

• Note that .zip files are NOT an acceptable format and will NOT go through the Air Force Network.

v. Quotation Submittal Quotations and any other documents must be submitted through email to tyler.pittmon@us.af.mil and suzanna.kussman@us.af.mil

7. Part I, Price Proposal: Submit 1 copy in .pdf or Microsoft Word or Excel 2016 compatible format.

(a) Quotation Guidance:

i. Complete SF 1449 blocks 12, Discount Terms; 17a Contractor Name, Address, Cage Code, Telephone No., Fax No.; 30a, Signature of Offeror/Contractor; 30b., Name and Title of Signer; 30c. Date Signed, and applicable Reps and Certs. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the

RFP.

ii. Insert the proposed unit prices and extended prices, with the total for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) listed in the SF 1449. Also provide the total contract value. Offerors may provide an excel format for their proposed prices in lieu of inserting into the SF 1449; however, offerors shall ensure the line items match the stated quantities within the SF 1449.

iii. Complete all the necessary fill-ins in the SF 1449 – Continuation Sheet and certifications in the provisions. The provision FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Products and Commercial Services, shall be returned with the proposal.

8. Part II, Technical Proposal - Submit 1 copy in .pdf or Microsoft Word or Excel 2016 compatible format earlier. Each offeror shall submit a technical proposal volume with its proposal highlighting their ability to meet all technical requirements in the SOW and containing the following:

(a) Subfactor 1 – Quality of Design - Contractor demonstrated quality of design, fabrication, installation and certified operability of the system

(b) Subfactor 2 – Deliverables - Quality and comprehensiveness of deliverables

(c) Subfactor 3 – Compliance – The proposal meets called out regulatory, industry, and or government standards, and establish a process to meet those standards.

9. Part III, Past Performance Information: Submit 1 copy in .pdf or Microsoft Word or Excel 2016 compatible format.

(a) Page Limits: Limited to no more than 10 pages per contract submitted.

(b) Contract Submission Limits: Submit Present and Past Performance Questionnaire

(PPPQ) (see Attachment-5) on no more than three (3) contracts that are current, recent, and relevant to demonstrate the ability to perform the proposed effort. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. Submit PPPQs (see Attachment-5) on no more than three (3) contracts, for each major, or critical subcontractor, or teaming/joint mailto:tyler.pittmon@us.af.mil mailto:suzanna.kussman@us.af.mil venture that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. to demonstrate the ability to perform the proposed effort. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. Refer to 52.212-2, EVALUATION— COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES for determining if the contracts you propose to submit meet the definition of current, recent, and relevant.

i. Offerors are required to thoroughly explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed Steam Generator effort. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risks.

Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. Clearly demonstrate what management actions were employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. Specifically relate them to sections and paragraphs within the Statement of Work.

ii. Offerors 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.

iii. Format. Use the Past Performance Questionnaire for submitting current, recent, and relevant (reference 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES) contract past performance information.

Provide a separate form for each contract submitted. This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform a major portion of the proposed services. This is based on the total proposed price or performance aspects of the services the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement. The Government will use information provided by the offeror and information obtained from other sources to determine if the contractor references past work to demonstrate their ability to design, fabricate, deliver, and assemble the steam generator, as well as show validation of past performance that gives the Government confidence they can complete the design, per section 18 of the SOW. (reference 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS

AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES).

iv. Partnership Agreements. If any of the contracts you identify were performed as teaming or joint venture partners, offerors must thoroughly explain the relationship of each partner, e.g. managing partner under the contract submitted, and include copies of the teaming and/or joint venture agreement for these contracts. (does not apply to page limitations listed in Addendum to 52.212- 1(D)(2)

v. Subcontractor Consents. Past Performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Contractors must provide, with the proposal, a signed letter of consent from all subcontractors consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

vi. Past Performance Questionnaire. The offeror shall send out and track the completion of the Past Performance Questionnaire in Attachment-5 for each contract point of contact identified in the Performance Information Forms. The responsibility to timely send out and track the completion of the Past Performance Questionnaire rests solely with the offeror. The offeror shall exert its best efforts to ensure the points of contact submit completed Past Performance Questionnaires directly to the Contract Specialist as specified on the second page of the Past Performance Questionnaire by the closing date of the solicitation.

End Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Quote Preparation Instructions

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (NOV 2021)

The following words “offer”, “offeror”, and “proposal” shall have the same meaning as “quotation”, “vendor”, and “quote”, respectively.

(a) The Government will award a contract 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) PRICE

(2) TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

(3) PAST PERFORMANCE

In the integrated assessment, upon which the award assessment will be made, Past Performance and Technical Capability, when combined, are relatively less important than Price when being evaluated.

The technical subfactors will be subjectively rated on the expected benefit to the government and probability of program success based on the subfactor elements. See FAR 52.212-2 Addendum below.

(b) 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 contract without further action by either party. Before the quotation's specified expiration time, the Government may accept a quotation, whether there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Addenda to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive, best value evaluation in which competing vendors' price, technical capability, and past performance history will be evaluated.

By submission of its quotation in accordance with the instructions provided in FAR 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 offeror whose proposal 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.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, offerors’ initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Price Evaluation. Initially offerors shall be ranked from lowest to highest according to the offeror’s proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP is determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for CLINs and adding the totals for all CLINs.

B. Technical Requirement. Next, the Government will evaluate the technical proposal, on a subjective rating basis, submitted by the lowest TEP ranked offeror. The offeror’s technical proposal will be rated as described in the table provided below. If the lowest priced offeror is deemed to be moderate or high, they will advance to the Performance Confidence Assessment evaluation (step 3). If the lowest priced offeror is deemed low, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

Technical Factor Ratings Table High The proposed approach demonstrates a high benefit to the government with a high probability of program success Moderate The proposed approach demonstrates a moderate benefit to the government with a moderate probability of program success

Low The proposed approach does NOT meet the requirements of the SOW

The proposal shall demonstrate a plan to meet all the requirements included in SOW Section 5 and clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation and Statement of Work.

The proposal shall specify all finished systems, sub-systems and major components (i.e., Steam Vessel, Water Heating System, Burner system, Supports, Valves, Nozzles, etc.) to be delivered and assembled to create a complete and functional Steam Generator. The proposal shall not exclude any requested systems from Sections 4 and 5 of the SOW.

The technical evaluation shall consist of separate subfactors, as annotated in the following sections:

1. Subfactor 1: Quality of Design

a. Description: Contractor demonstrated quality of design, fabrication, installation and certified operability of the system

b. Criteria:

• The proposal shows a plan and associated schedule to complete the design of the system from Conceptual (30%) Design through Critical (95%) Design. The proposal incorporates all design constraints from Section 5.

• The proposal shows a plan to fully test and certify the system when complete. The Contractor proposes a plan to evaluate the performance of the final as-built Steam Generation system when installed, and ensure it meets the as-designed system within pre-established bounds (specified in the 95% design review). The proposal lays out acceptable bounds within +/- an established bound.

• The proposal shows a plan and associated schedule to produce easy-to-follow manuals and procedures including control scheme, emergency shutdown procedures and anomalous procedures.

2. Subfactor 2: Deliverables

a. Description: Quality and comprehensiveness of deliverables

b. Criteria:

• The proposal demonstrates that the contractor will perform all needed engineering, analysis, modeling, preparation of drawings, and calculations to complete the design.

• The proposal indicates that the contractor will design with interfacing of the legacy system in mind. (i.e. They reference current facility P&IDs to ensure proper interfacing and fit up with the original facility.

• The proposal establishes a plan for developing a test process to evaluate the as-delivered hardware’s capability. The proposal establishes a plan to test specifications proposed at the 95% design review, and associated schedule.

• The proposal adequately demonstrates the ability of the contractor to deliver each of the SOW deliverables in Section 20. A plan to deliver to the Government each deliverable in Section 20 should be shown (i.e. The contractor indicates that they will handle deliverable X within a certain design review. They acknowledge deliverable Y will be complete during functional testing.).

3. Subfactor 3: Compliance

a. Description: The proposal meets regulatory, industry and/or Government standards, and establishes a process to meet those standards.

b. Criteria:

• The proposal demonstrates that the contractor will design according to ASME B&PVC Section I and other ASME code as appropriate, per section 4 of the SOW.

• The proposal indicates a schedule that will meet timelines called out in the SOW, including delivering the various design reviews, drawings, analysis, physical hardware, and conducting final checkouts on time or within a reasonably close schedule.

• The proposal demonstrates compliance with safety and environmental standards, such as controlling NOx emissions, Safety Devices for boilers per ASME code, etc.

C. Past Performance (Performance Confidence Assessment)

1. Finally, the Government shall seek recent and relevant performance information on the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror based on (1) the past efforts provided by the Prime Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a ‘Substantial Confidence’ performance confidence assessment rating. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to supply the Steam Generator installation that meets users’ needs, based on the offerors demonstrated record of performance. The offeror’s Performance Confidence Assessment is comprised of three factors: Recency, Relevancy, and Quality and will result in a confidence assessment rating of ‘Substantial Confidence’, ‘Satisfactory Confidence’, ‘Neutral Confidence’, ‘Limited Confidence’, or ‘No Confidence’

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method

Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating ‘Neutral Confidence’, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

1. Recency. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. Performance that is more recent will have more impact than less recent performance. Recent contracts are: (a) contracts, which have been completed within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation, or (b) contracts that are currently being performed (with a performance record of at least one (1) year from the

Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence -Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

-The contractor references past work to demonstrate their ability to design, fabricate, deliver, and assemble the steam generator. They otherwise show validation of past performance that gives the Government confidence they can complete the design, per section 18 of the SOW.

Satisfactory Confidence Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

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

Limited Confidence Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

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 date of issuance of this solicitation). Performance that is more recent will generally have more impact than less recent performance. Past performance information that is found to be neither current nor recent will not be evaluated.

2. Relevancy. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated to determine: (1) the performance quality of relevant efforts and (2) how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Steam Generator requirement.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

3. Quality The performance quality of each recent and relevant effort (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) will be assessed, per Table 4a, Quality Ratings/Definitions. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the Present and Past Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ) responses and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) information. It may include interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, interviews with commercial clients, and interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. A separate overall quality assessment rating will not be given; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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

Quality Assessment Rating Description EXCEPTIONAL (E) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many.

Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took

A. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in 52.212- 1 – Instructions to Offerors. Offerors 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 discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for quote revision.

B. The government anticipates adequate price competition and intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

End Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items immediate and effective corrective action.

GOOD (G) During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

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

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

Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U) During the contract period, contractor performance is failing/fail to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N) Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect.