Attachment 6 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and -2.pdf

FAR Provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (Mar 2023) 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), 17a (to include your CAGE code in the “CODE” box), total price of all CLINs in 26 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 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 contract 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. Cost or Pricing Data: The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial quotations, the Contracting Officer will review this determination and if, in the Contracting Officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested. However, if at any time during this competition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, vendors may be required to submit cost or pricing data to support a determination of price reasonableness and affordability. Further, the Contracting Officer may request that the data be submitted consistent with the format in Table 15-2 of FAR 15.408, but without the certification requirement of FAR 15.406-2 (see solicitation FAR Clause 52.215-20, Alt IV).

7. Quotation – General Information:

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

i. Volume I - Price Quotation

ii. Volume II - Technical Submission

iii. Volume 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 FAR Provision 52.212-2 EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS of the solicitation

iii. Page formatting and limitations – incorrectly formatted pages and excess pages will not be read or evaluated and will be removed from the quote. In addition, company introductory pages, to include marketing information, will not be read or evaluated and will be removed from the quote. The following sub-bullets apply to ALL three (3) quotation volumes.

• 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.

iv. Quotation Submittal Quotation volumes and any other documents must be submitted via email to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist.

Attachment-6 “Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and FAR 52.212-2 52.212-2”

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

Attachment 6 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and -2 to FA930125Q0014 Page 1 of 6 https://sam.gov/

8. Volume I Price Quotation:

(a) Quotation Guidance:

i. Enter your pricing into the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) # 0001- 4022 of the Solicitation SF 1449, as noted in the following sub-bullets:

• Unit Price & Amount Vendors are to enter their quoted “Unit Price” amount, and then multiply that amount by the “Quantity” to determine the “Amount” for a CLIN. This process shall be done for all CLINs.

• Total Quoted Amount Vendors shall total the “Amount” of all CLINs to determine the Total Quoted Amount they shall place in Block #26 of the SF 1449.

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

(b) Electronic Copy: Shall submit an Adobe (pdf) copy of the completed Solicitation to include any solicitation provisions.

(c) Page Limits: None

(d) Evaluation Criteria: See FAR Provision 52.212-2 EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS

9. Volume II, Technical Submission: Each vendor shall submit a technical submittal highlighting their ability to meet all technical requirements in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and containing the subfactors as described in Section B of the Addendum to FAR 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)

(c) Evaluation Criteria: See FAR Provision 52.212-2 EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS

10. Volume III Past Performance Information:

(a) Form Guidance:

i. Contractors shall Submit Present and Past Performance information on a minimum of two (2) and 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. All past performances shall be recent (within 3 years), relevant or similar in nature to this requirement. Refer to 52.212-2 Evaluation for determining if submissions meet the definition of current, recent, and relevant. Clearly demonstrate what management actions were employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. 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 (N) rating.

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

(c) Page Limits: Limited to no more than six (6) pages.

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

Attachment 6 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and -2 to FA930125Q0014 Page 2 of 6

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) TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

(2) PAST PERFORMANCE

(3) PRICE

In the integrated assessment upon which the award assessment will be made, 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. The technical subfactors will be evaluated on a Technically Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

(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 or not 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' technical capability, and past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly higher than price. 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 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.

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 submission, on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, submitted by the lowest TEP ranked offeror. The offeror’s technical submission will be rated ‘Acceptable’ or ‘Unacceptable’ as defined within the subfactors and the table provided below. If the lowest priced offeror is deemed to be acceptable in each of the subfactors, they will advance to the Past Performance Evaluation (step 3). If the lowest priced offeror is deemed unacceptable in one or more of the following subfactors, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated for technical acceptability. The offeror must be acceptable for each subfactor listed below in order to be deemed acceptable overall.

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

Attachment 6 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and -2 to FA930125Q0014 Page 3 of 6

1. Subfactor 1: Quality Control Plan

a. Description: The offeror must provide a comprehensive written Quality Control Plan that outlines an inspection system covering all contract-required service areas, including the frequency and type of inspections. The plan should clearly define the roles and responsibilities of quality control personnel and specify how inspection results and corrective actions are documented.

b. Criteria: An acceptable rating is met when the Quality Control Plan is evaluated as complete and clear, detailing the inspection system, including the frequency and types of inspections performed. The plan must clearly outline the roles and responsibilities of quality control personnel and other key staff involved in maintaining service quality. Additionally, the adequacy of recordkeeping procedures for documenting inspections and corrective actions will be assessed. Sample inspection reports should demonstrate thoroughness and detail, reflecting a comprehensive and effective approach to quality control.

2. Subfactor 2: Schedule

a. Description: The offeror must demonstrate a realistic understanding of workload factors and submit a detailed work schedule addressing all requirements of the PWS. This includes a sample schedule for the first month of contract performance, showcasing the ability to effectively manage and coordinate services.

b. Criteria: An acceptable rating is met when the proposed schedule is evaluated as realistic and feasible in meeting the workload requirements. It should clearly demonstrate completeness and practicality, outlining how all contract services will be managed. The schedule must align with the requirements specified in the PWS and Contractor Work Schedule, and include a sound methodology that ensures the timely and efficient fulfillment of all government obligations

3. Subfactor 3: Equipment and Personnel

a. Description: The offeror must demonstrate the capability to provide proper equipment and qualified personnel necessary to perform all contract services as per the PWS requirements.

b. Criteria: An acceptable rating is achieved when the evaluation determines that the offeror has the necessary equipment available and is suitable to perform the required services effectively. The qualifications, training, and experience of the personnel assigned to the contract will also be evaluated to ensure they can meet the contract’s demands.

Additionally, the offeror’s ability to maintain both equipment and personnel readiness throughout the duration of the contract will be a critical consideration in the assessment.

4. Subfactor 4: Spillage Control

a. Description: The offeror must provide a clear and realistic methodology for identifying, preventing, mitigating, and reporting spills, minimizing environmental impact in accordance with PWS environmental protection requirements.

b. Criteria: An acceptable rating is met when the offeror’s submission demonstrates effective and thorough spill prevention methods that minimize environmental risks and ensure operational safety. The submission must include robust procedures for spill identification, containment, and mitigation to promptly detect and address any incidents, thereby limiting potential damage. Compliance with the environmental protection and spillage control sections of the PWS is required to meet regulatory standards and industry best practices.

Furthermore, clear protocols for reporting and corrective actions must be outlined to ensure timely documentation of spills and implementation of measures to prevent recurrence and protect the environment.

5. Subfactor 5: Risk Management and Compliance

a. Description: Assesses the vendor's awareness of and ability to mitigate compliance risks.

b. Criteria: To achieve an "Acceptable" rating, the submission must demonstrate a clear understanding of all relevant rules and regulations and outline specific processes designed to prevent violations. This includes clear strategies for waste disposal, spill prevention, and ensuring the accuracy of permits and certifications. A contingency plan for addressing unexpected compliance challenges is crucial. Failing to demonstrate the ability to manage compliance risks will result in an "Unacceptable" rating.

Attachment 6 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and -2 to FA930125Q0014 Page 4 of 6

6. Subfactor 6: Service Quality and Reliability

a. Description: This subfactor is about ensuring dependable service. Responses will be evaluated on the quality of the proposed equipment and the strength of the systems in place to guarantee consistently high-quality service.

b. Criteria: An "Acceptable" submission thoroughly describes equipment specs, outlines a detailed service schedule tied to the PWS, and explains thorough cleaning and maintenance practices. It also shows the ability to handle unexpected events, like bad weather and ensuring Executive Trailers are available. Any vagueness or lack of detail here will lead to an "Unacceptable" rating.

C. Past Performance Assessment Finally, the contractor shall provide at least two (2) past performance work records. 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 Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive an ‘Excellent’ past performance 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 provide for the Chemical Toilet and Septic Tank requirement to meet users’ needs, based on the offerors demonstrated record of performance. The offeror’s Past Performance Assessment will evaluate recency, relevancy, and quality and will result in a rating of Exceptional, Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory, or Not Applicable/Neutral. 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 Ratings/Definitions

Table - Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Acceptable Quotation clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation and PWS

Unacceptable Quotation does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation and

PWS

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

SATISFACTORY (S) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract 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 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. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Attachment 6 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and -2 to FA930125Q0014 Page 5 of 6

1. Award Decision: If the lowest priced offer is judged to have an ‘Exceptional’ past performance assessment rating, and receives an Acceptable rating on the technical evaluation, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have an ‘Exceptional’ past performance assessment rating or receives an ‘Unacceptable’ rating on the technical evaluation, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by TEP) until an offeror is judged to have an ‘Exceptional’ past performance assessment, or until all offerors are evaluated.

D. Vendor Responsibilities: Vendors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in 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 a contract without the opportunity for quote revision.

E. Government Discretion Regarding Interchanges: The Government intends to award a contract without Interchanges with respective vendors in accordance with FAR 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 three quotation Volumes (Price, Technical, or Past Performance or general documentation). 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. Note that in accordance with FAR 13, vendors do not have to be offered an opportunity to revise their quotation through a formal FQR. If the vendor’s quotation has been evaluated as acceptable at the time Interchanges are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FQR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the vendor’s quotation be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

End Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items

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. 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

NOT APPLICABLE/

NEUTRAL (N)

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

Attachment 6 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and -2 to FA930125Q0014 Page 6 of 6