Attachment K - Addendum FAR 52.212-2.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

1.0. Evaluation.

1.1. Basis for Contract Award. Awards will be made to the offeror whose proposal meets or exceeds the acceptability standards for the technical factors/subfactors and past performance, as stated in the Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1, and has the lowest evaluated price. All proposals will be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability. Failure to meet any requirement may result in a proposal being determined technically unacceptable. Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding the acceptability standards. The award will be made to the offeror who:

a. Is rated "Acceptable" in Factor 1 and all subfactors (Technical);

b. Is rated "Acceptable" or "Neutral" in Factor 2 (Past Performance);

c. Is rated "Acceptable" in Factor 4 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan);

d. Offers the lowest evaluated price; and

e. Whose proposal conforms to all solicitation requirements (including all terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and any other information required by the solicitation).

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one five-year Firm, Fixed-Price Requirements-Type contracts for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposal and prices submitted.

1.3. Rejection of Offers. The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions.

1.4. Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions). Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements such as: terms and conditions; representations and certifications; SOO requirements; and those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offeror shall take no exception to the solicitation requirements.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors Used to Evaluate. Award will be made to offeror combination deemed most advantageous to the Government, following an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1: Technical capability will be measured against requirements specified in the solicitation.

As such, technical capability is considered acceptable when the offeror’s proposal is in compliance with the requirements of the solicitation and address factors and sub-factors below:

Factor: 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

Factor 4: Small Business Subcontracting Plan

2.2. Evaluation Methodology. The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for award. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal (s) meeting the acceptability standards for Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance and Factor 4 Small Business Subcontracting Plan, who has been determined responsible and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation).

2.3. Factor 1 – Technical

The technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below.

The Technical Factor is considered acceptable when the Offeror(s) technical proposal demonstrates a robust approach and adequately addresses Factor 1 and subfactors as outlined in FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Products and Commercial Services, Volume I Technical Proposal.

2.3.1 Factor 2 - Past Performance

2.3.1.1 Past performance will be assessed based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance for contracts similar to those outlined in the solicitation. The evaluation will focus on whether the offeror has successfully performed similar contracts, including production and delivery, and quality control measures aligned with the solicitation’s requirements.

Sources of Past Performance Information:

1. Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited, within their proposal.

2. The Contracting Officer shall obtain past performance information from agencies identified by the offeror.

3. Past performance information may also be gathered from other available Government sources, including but not limited to:

• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

• Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

• Other applicable government databases.

Past performance will be used as an evaluation factor within the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) process, unless waived by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii). Past performance shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. However, the comparative assessment described in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply in this case.

Rating:

Past performance will be rated on a scale of “Acceptable,” “Unacceptable,” or “Neutral,” as detailed in the evaluation table below.

The Government will assess the relevancy of past performance based on the following criteria:

The performance must involve contracts of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity, particularly those involving production and delivery of products similar to those listed in the solicitation, and in quantities comparable to those requested under NAICS Code 325180.

The offeror’s past performance should demonstrate the ability to manage multiple deliveries of products, incorporating in-process quality control measures aligned with the solicitation’s requirements.

Relevant Past Performance includes:

Contracts involving production and delivery of similar products in quantities or frequencies comparable to those in the solicitation.

Demonstrated use of quality control procedures during production, ensuring compliance with product specifications and timely deliveries.

Not Relevant Past Performance includes:

Contracts that do not meet the relevant criteria (e.g., different product types, significantly smaller or larger quantities, or lack of quality control procedures).

One-time deliveries that do not demonstrate the ability to perform under ongoing, large-scale contract requirements.

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral

In the case of an Offeror 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 Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). Therefore, the Offeror will be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable”.

Past Performance Rating Method

Past performance that does not meet these relevancy criteria will not be considered in the evaluation for acceptability.

2.4. Factor 3- Price

2.4.1 Price proposals shall be evaluated in accordance with the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) procedures. The price will be evaluated to determine the reasonableness of the total evaluated price based on adequate price competition.

2.4.2 Reasonableness: The determination of price reasonableness will involve reviewing all the proposed CLINs. It is anticipated that adequate price competition will satisfy the requirement for price reasonableness for this effort. In general, adequate price competition is sufficient to ensure price reasonableness. For a price to be considered reasonable, it must represent a price that a prudent person would pay, taking into account market prices and affordability. If adequate price competition is not obtained, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, the Government may require additional information to support the proposed price.

2.4.3 Balance: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to CLIN prices, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4.4 Data Other than Certified Pricing Data: If required by the Contracting Officer, data other than certified pricing shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing.

2.4.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): TEP will be used for evaluation purpose only. Evaluation of 6-month extension shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

The total evaluated price will be derived by calculated using half of the Year 5 product estimated quantity, six months of MMFF, and one of each of the other ancillary services.

ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-4: Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Products and Commercial Services. The addendum governs the 6-month contract extension period and adds paragraph (w), Industry-Specific Extension.

2.5 Factor 4- Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Plan

2.5.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan based on the following criteria:

2.5.2 Goals: The extent to which the Offeror’s proposed subcontracting goals represent a realistic and ambitious commitment to maximizing small business participation in the performance of this contract. The Government will consider the percentage of total subcontracting dollars allocated to small businesses, the specific types of work to be subcontracted, and the Offeror's rationale for the proposed goals. Higher consideration will be given to plans that exceed minimum goals.

2.5.3 Outreach Efforts: The effectiveness of the Offeror’s plan for identifying and soliciting small businesses, including SDBs, WOSBs, EDWOSBs, VOSBs, and SDVOSBs. The Government will consider the Offeror’s proposed methods for conducting market research, attending industry events, utilizing government resources, and establishing relationships with small business organizations. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror's commitment to providing technical assistance and mentorship to small businesses.

2.5.4 Implementation and Monitoring: The adequacy of the Offeror's plan for implementing and monitoring the Small Business Subcontracting Plan throughout the contract performance period.

The Government will consider the Offeror’s proposed methods for tracking subcontracting activity, reporting progress to the Government, and ensuring compliance with the terms of the subcontracting plan.

2.5.5 Past Performance (if applicable): The Offeror’s past performance in meeting small business subcontracting goals on previous contracts. The Government will consider information from Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other relevant sources. If the Offeror has no relevant past performance, this factor will be evaluated neutrally.

2.5.6 Assurances: The extent to which the Offeror provides assurances that it will:

1. Include FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, in all subcontracts that offer further subcontracting opportunities.

2. Cooperate in any studies or surveys requested by the contracting agency.

3. Submit reports in accordance with contract requirements.

4. Ensure that small businesses have an equitable opportunity to compete for subcontracts.

5. Maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the subcontracting plan.

2.5.7 Small Business Subcontracting Plan Rating:

The SB subcontracting plan will be rated on a scale of “Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable,” as detailed in the evaluation table below.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan Rating Method Adjective

Rating Description

Acceptable

The Offeror demonstrates a minimum commitment to maximizing small business participation. The proposed subcontracting goals are acceptable, and the plan for implementation and monitoring is satisfactory. The Offeror has an acceptable track record of meeting small business subcontracting goals (if applicable) and provides adequate assurances of compliance.

Unacceptable

The Offeror fails to demonstrate an minimum commitment to maximizing small business participation. The proposed subcontracting goals are unrealistic or inadequate, the outreach efforts are insufficient, and the plan for implementation and monitoring is poorly defined. The Offeror has a poor track record of meeting small business subcontracting goals (if applicable) and provides inadequate assurances of compliance or fails to submit small business subcontracting plan in accordance with solicitation.

(End of Addendum)