Attachment L - 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. Award (s) will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for the technical factors stated in the Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 by location(s). All proposals shall be evaluated for technical acceptability. Failure to meet a 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 acceptability. Award will be made to the offeror who: is rated “Acceptable” in Factor 1 Technical; has the lowest evaluated price by location; and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation).

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government may award one or more three-year Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity fixed priced 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. The customer- owned bulk storage tanks described in the Statement of Objectives are located at Cape Canaveral, FL and Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB), CA. As, product cannot be commingled, individual delivery orders will not be competed, each potential offeror would delivery to a specific location/tank.

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(s) will be made to offeror (s) combination deemed most advantageous to the Government, following an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below, categorized by location:

Factor 1: Technical

Factor: 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.1.1. 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 by location to the lowest evaluated priced proposal (s) meeting the acceptability standards for Factor 1, 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).

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

The technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed 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 demonstrates a robust approach and adequately addresses Factor 1 as outlined in FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Products and Commercial Services, Part II, Factor 1.

2.3. Factor 2 - Past Performance

2.3.1 The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Past performance shall be used as an evaluation factor within the LPTA process, unless waived by the PCO in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii). It shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. Therefore, past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in table below.

Past performance should be initially evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each LPTA source selection. Therefore, the solicitation shall establish the criteria for recency and relevancy in relation to the specific requirement being procured. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract performance history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the requirements of the contract that is procurement.

Second, the past performance evaluation should determine how well the offeror performed on the prior contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

NOTE: 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 may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

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 unknown. (See note above)

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.

2.4. Factor 3 – Price

2.4.1. Price Reasonableness and Balance. The Government will rank all offers by Total Evaluated Price (TEP), including all option prices. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is based on competitive proposals or offers, but may also be based on techniques described Contract Pricing Reference Guide-Volume 1. Unreasonable or unrealistic proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement. Additionally, unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may render an Offeror's proposal ineligible for award. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their price reasonableness and balance. The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis if deemed necessary.

2.4.2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with FAR 52.212-1 Addendum Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

Table below will demonstrate the TEP calculation methodology.

Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required IAW with the following format:

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for Year 1 Ordering Period, three one-year Ordering Periods, and an optional six month Extension Period IAW FAR

Period of Performance Price Total Price for Year 1 Total Price for Year 2 Total Price for Year 3 Total Price for 6 Month Extension TEP = (All Ordering Periods + 6 Month Ext)

52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract. The six month Extension Period unit prices will be based on the proposed Year 3 unit prices. The six month Extension Period under FAR 52.217-9 will only be utilized if necessary. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The six month Extension Period is not to be considered part of Year 4 and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized.

(End of Addendum)