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

Basis for Contract Award. Awards will be made to the Offeror whose proposal meets the acceptability standards for the technical factors/subfactors and past performance, as stated in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Services, and has the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA). Price becomes determinative once technical acceptability is achieved. 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 Government will evaluate the Price Factor for technically acceptable proposals in accordance with FAR 12.602. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract based on the initial proposals received, without conducting discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposals should contain its best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Governments reserves the right to hold exchanges with an Offeror whose proposal is unclear or contains minor clerical errors. These exchanges will be conducted for the sole purpose of clarification and will not be used to permit the Offeror to revise its proposals.

Communications held for clarification will not constitute discussions as defined in FAR

15.306. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable and has the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process in accordance with FAR 15.101-2.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one Firm-Fixed Price Type Requirements Contract with a five (5) year period of performance and will include the option to extend for up to 6 months for this acquisition. All CLINs per location will be awarded to only one Offeror. Therefore, in order to be eligible for award, an offer must include all CLINs at a location. The Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted.

Rejection of Offers. The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to meet any portion of the requirements or contract terms and conditions. Offerors are advised of the possibility that its proposal may be found unacceptable if exceptions are taken to the solicitation without the Government’s express acceptation of the exception. The Standard Form 1449 must be completed along with all SF-30 solicitation amendments (if applicable), Schedule of Supplies Pricing Form Worksheet, QAP 33.10 Manufacturing and Fill Points, Technical Proposal and Technical Proposal Document, Contractor Performance Data Sheet, and all certifications and representations. The SF 1449 and all solicitation amendments must be signed.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

Factor 1: Technical. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s requirements. The acceptability of product or service shall be addressed in every LPTA source selection through consideration of one or more non-price evaluation factors. For LPTAs, this is done through the establishment of requirements to be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-price factors. To be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor. Although Offerors are required to submit a Technical Proposal, a Pre-Award Survey may also be required.

The technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below. The technical team will review the proposals submitted by each Offeror to evaluate their Technical Capability. This evaluation will ensure technical requirements are met, with proposals rated as either acceptable or unacceptable based on the criteria outlined in the table below.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The Technical Factor is considered acceptable when the Offeror(s) technical proposal addresses Factor 1 and subfactors as outlined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Products and Commercial Services. Offerors shall submit a technical proposal and complete the Technical Evaluation Form with the required information for each factor and subfactor. The information must be complete and must be determined acceptable to meet the requirements of the Solicitation. The Technical Capability evaluation will address the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1.1. Offeror must ensure a reliable supply of on-spec product and services to meet the Government’s requirement that address the following factors:

Subfactor 1.1 a. Production capability per day of proposed fill plant (s). The Offeror shall have the capacity to produce and deliver the quantities detailed in the solicitation for each location included in the proposal.

Subfactor 1.1 b. Plant storage capacity for products offered. The Offeror shall have adequate storage capacity for quantity of product required at vendor location.

Subfactor 1.1 c. If applicable, for each location proposed on, Offeror must describe type number and size of the containers that will be used for the delivery of product to the customer. Offeror shall indicate the necessary type and size of the containers used for the delivery of product required for each location included in the proposal.

Subfactor 1.1 d. If the contract requires maintenance and repair of Government owned equipment, such as repairs to cylinders or tube trailers, describe how such services will be performed to meet solicitation requirements. Pertains to Facility Conversion Fee for CDSEDWRDS2. If Offeror includes CDSEDWRDS2 in proposal, Offeror shall describe how the Facility Conversion Fee requirements for maintenance of the Government-owned GN2 facility will be met.

Subfactor 1.1 e. The Offeror shall describe their in-process quality control procedures that will be implemented to ensure the production and delivery of on-spec products. These procedures must meet the following minimum requirements:

a. Aviator Breathing Oxygen provided under this contract shall meet the requirements of MIL-PRF-27210J, dated August 7, 2013, for

CDSBEA9LRS, CDSBEALEAF, CDSCHANNEL, CDSCHINLAK,

CDSEDWRDS, CDSFRESNOA, CDSMCASMIR, CDSMOFFETF,

CDSNAFELCE, CDSNASLEMO, CDSNASNORT, CDSPTMUGU,

CDSTRAVISA, and CDSMARCHAF.

b. Liquid Oxygen provided under this contract shall meet the requirements of MIL-PRF-25508J, dated March 2, 2020, for CDSAMENTUM, CDSNAWCHHI, and CDSEDWRDS4.

c. Liquid Nitrogen provided under this contract shall meet the requirements of MIL-PRF-27401H, dated January 9, 2024, for

CDSAREOJCP, CDSAMENTUM, CDSEDWRDS2,

CDSNAWCCHI, CDSPTMUGU, and CDSEDWRDS

d. Liquid Nitrogen provided under this contract shall meet the requirements of CID A-A-59503E, dated June 4, 2025, CDSMCASMIR, CDSNAFELCE, CDSNASLEMO, CDSNASNORT, and CDSTRAVISA.

e. The Offeror’s quality control procedures must include, at a minimum, the following elements: Regular inspections at key points in the production process, testing of raw materials and finished products against specification requirements, traceability of all products through the production and delivery process, documentation of quality control results and corrective actions taken to address any non-conformance.

A system to ensure that all products shipped under the contract meet the applicable MIL-SPEC and/or CID specifications.

Subfactor 1.2 The Offeror shall provide a quality sampling plan that ensures each shipment meets the product quality requirements stated in the applicable specification or product description. The quality Sampling Plan must describe the method for securing delivery container(s) and/or cargo tank openings with tamper indicating devices (i.e. seals) to prevent tampering and/or pilferage from the time the cargo tank is loaded until it is delivered to its destination with a minimum requirement to apply tamper-indicating devices (TIDs), such as seals or caps, to each shipping container immediately after filling and sampling. TIDs must be securely applied to prevent tampering, with serial numbers included where possible, and the container and TID numbers must be recorded on both the certificate of analysis and shipping documents.

(Refer to the CONTRACTOR SEAL REQUIREMENT in Attachment A - Statement of Objectives).

Subfactor 1.3. Description of Contractor-furnished equipment at a location other than the Contractor’s facility (e.g. on Government property) such as storage tanks or back up pumps. Pertains to Facility Conversion Fee for CDSEDWRDS2.

Subfactor 1.3 a. Describe all Contractor provided equipment to include a description of size, certifications, instrumentation, design parameters, etc. If Offeror includes CDSEDWRDS2 in proposal, Offeror shall describe the back-up liquid pump assembly specifications.

Subfactor 1.3 b. Include a timeline for the purchase, installation, testing and commissioning of the equipment. If Offeror includes CDSEDWRDS2 in proposal, Offeror shall include a timeline for the purchase of the back-up liquid pump assembly.

Subfactor 1.4. Supply Commitment Letter: If the Offeror is not the manufacturer of the product to be delivered under the contract or is otherwise proposing to provide product from a fill plant or production facility other than one owned and operated by the Offeror, then the Offeror shall provide a written supply commitment letter from the owner of production facility from where the product will be obtained in performance of any resultant contract. The supply commitment letter shall be submitted on owner’s fill plant company letterhead. The written supply commitment letter shall clearly indicate:

Subfactor 1.4 a. The owner of the fill plant or production facility is willing to provide the products and/or services quantities required to be delivered/performed under any resultant contract for the duration of the delivery period shown in the Schedule.

Subfactor 1.4 b. Confirmation of the quantity and specification of the products to be delivered.

Subfactor 1.4 c. The signature of the owner of the fill plant or production facility. It shall be presented on the official letterhead of the owner's company and dated within the solicitation period

Subfactor 1.5 Pre-Award Survey (PAS) and Manufacturing Fill-Point Capability: The objective of this subfactor is to evaluate the Offeror's production capabilities and their ability to meet the required quantities as outlined in the solicitation. The PAS is a critical assessment tool used to evaluate the Offeror's capacity to fulfill the contract requirements, mitigate potential risks associated with non-performance, and assess the adequacy of the Offeror's facilities, processes, and resources. Requirement to be Acceptable:

Subfactor 1.5 a. Pre-Award Survey Compliance: The Offeror must comply with the requirement to submit the completed Attachment E33.10 Manufacturing and Fill-Point as part of their proposal. Failure to submit the required documentation will result in an unacceptable evaluation. The Offeror shall meet production demands and timelines based on the evaluation of the E33.10.

Subfactor 1.5 b. Production Capability Assessment: The Offeror’s facilities, equipment, and processes must be sufficient to meet the production demands of the solicitation, as evaluated through the Pre-Award Survey. The Offeror shall demonstrate adequate manufacturing capacity, operational efficiency, and resource availability.

Subfactor 1.5 c. Risk Mitigation and Performance Assurance: The Offeror must demonstrate a clear plan for mitigating potential risks related to non-performance, including any measures for ensuring sufficient capacity for meeting delivery timelines and production volume requirements.

Subfactor 1.5 d. On-Site Review (If Applicable): If the PAS requires an on-site review, the Offeror must allow the Government or designated representative access to their production facilities to assess their ability to meet the production requirements. The Offeror shall comply with PAS requirements, including submission of necessary documentation and participation in any required on-site evaluations. Failure to facilitate the on-site review or to pass the PAS will render the Offeror’s proposal unacceptable.

Factor 2: Past Performance. 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 its 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)

• Other applicable Government databases.

Rating:

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

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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”.

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 325120.

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.

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

Recent Past Performance includes relevant performance occurring in the last two (2) years.

Factor 3: Price. The Government will evaluate the Price Factor for technically acceptable proposals in accordance with FAR 12.602. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable and has the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) using Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2.

For a proposal to be considered for award, it must first be determined to be technically acceptable. The Government will then evaluate the price of all technically acceptable proposals.

Offerors shall complete the attached Solicitation Attachment T – Schedule of Supplies Pricing Form Worksheet.

1. Unit prices and extended amounts must be entered for each Contract Line-Item Number

(CLIN).

2. The extended amount must equal the Unit Price multiplied by the number of Units.

3. All calculations must be accurate. Unit prices and extended amounts are limited to two decimal places.

4. Offerors shall not include in offer prices, any taxes from which to United States

Government is exempt.

5. The Schedule of Supplies Pricing Form Worksheet Excel document must be submitted unlocked.

6. No price data of any kind shall be included in any other volume of the proposal.

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, from the Offeror, to support the proposed price.

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 rendered unacceptable and may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

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.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will evaluate the price proposal by calculating a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will include base and all options.

It is anticipated that adequate price competition will establish price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(ii). If there is no competition, price reasonableness will be determined using Pricing History in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i). Award will be made to the responsible Offeror with the lowest Total Evaluated Price among all Technically acceptable proposals. Once a proposal is determined to be technically acceptable, total evaluated price becomes determinative.

1. The TEP will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit price by the estimated quantity for all CLINs, including all option periods.

2. The TEP will be used for evaluation and award purposes only.

3. Evaluation of option periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

4. The Government will review the lowest-priced proposal to determine price reasonableness. It is anticipated that adequate price competition will establish price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(ii). If there is no competition, price reasonableness will be determined using Pricing History in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i).

A proposal may be rejected if it is incomplete or contains material mathematical errors.

(End of Addendum)

2.0. Evaluation Factors