Attch6_Addendum_to_FAR_52.212-1_and-2_Solicitation.pdf

Attachment-6 “Addendum to RFO 52.212-1 and RFO 52.212-2” to FA930126Q0006

RFO Provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items 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.

1. Exceptions to Terms and Conditions: Vendors must clearly identify any exception to solicitation terms and conditions and provide accompanying rationale.

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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. CMMC 2.0 Self-Assessment must be completed in SPRS (See attachment for instructions). As a result of new policy beginning 10 November 2025, we would like to inform you of your responsibility to comply with the DoD's CMMC 2.0 framework at

Level 1. IAW R-DFARS 252.204-7021, CMMC is the DoD's program to verify that all contractors have implemented the required cybersecurity standards to protect Controlled

Unclassified Information. FCI is information, not intended for public release, that is provided by or generated for the Government under a contract to develop or deliver a product or service. Your organization's CMMC status will be verified to be active and accurate in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) module of PIEE. For assistance, please review Attachment: PIEE CMMC Level 1 Help Guide.

7. Quotation – General Information:

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

i. I - Price Quotation

ii. II - Technical Submission

iii. III - Past Performance Information

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

i. Solicitation Requirements

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

Note: This solicitation attachment provides addendums to two provisions.

Therefore, this attachment will NOT remain in the ensuing contract award.

https://sam.gov/

ii. Evaluation factors for award in RFO 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.

8. Volume I Price Quotation:

(a) Quotation Guidance:

i. Enter your pricing into the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) # 0001- 4005 of the Solicitation SF 1449/Model Contract (Attachment 9), 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/Model Contract.

• 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 RFO 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 Statement of Work (SOW) and containing the evaluation factors as described in Section B of the Addendum to RFO

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 RFO Provision 52.212-2 EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS

10. Volume II, Past Performance Information:

(a) Form Guidance:

i. Contractors shall Submit a completed Present and Past Performance Questionnaire on a minimum of one (1)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 10 years), relevant or similar in nature to this requirement. Refer to RFO 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/Neutral (N) rating.

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

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

(End Addendum to RFO 52.212-1, Proposal Preparation Instructions)

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

The following words stating “offer”, “offeror”, and “proposal” are replaced with “quotation”, “vendor”, and “quote”.

(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

(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 submission will be evaluated on a

Technically Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

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.

ADDENDUM TO RFO 52.212-2

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 RFO 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.

1. 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.

2. Technical Requirement. The Government will evaluate the technical submission on an

‘Acceptable’ or ‘Unacceptable’ basis. A response must receive an ‘Acceptable’ rating to be considered forward. The offeror’s technical submission will be rated ‘Acceptable’ or

‘Unacceptable’ as defined within the table provided below.

a. Technical Capability This factor evaluates the offeror's understanding of and proposed approach to meeting the technical requirements of the SOW. The quote must demonstrate a clear and feasible plan to successfully perform the work.

2. Past Performance. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance for recency, relevancy, and quality, assigning one of the ratings defined in the "Past Performance

Ratings/Definitions “table. The evaluation will review the submissions of at least one (1) and no more than 3 completed Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment #5), of comparable Vehicle Exhaust

Maintenance, Inspection and Repair work. 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 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 Vehicle Exhaust Maintenance, Inspection and Repair requirement, based on the offerors demonstrated record of performance. The contractor is responsible for providing sufficient information with their past performance record that reflects capability in accordance with the table below. The offeror’s Past Performance Assessment will evaluate recency, relevancy, and quality. Recency is within the last 10 years, relevant present/past performance efforts are those that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities required by this solicitation. 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 efforts will be evaluated using the scale below.

Table C-2: Past Performance Evaluation rating

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.

VERY GOOD (v) 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 (or 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/NEUTRAL

(N)

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. The rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably

3. Award Decision: The award will be made to the offeror within the competitive range whose response represents the best value, with non-price factors weighed more heavily than price. To arrive at a best value decision, the Government will first evaluate responses for technical acceptability. For all technically acceptable responses within the competitive range, the Government will then conduct a trade-off analysis of Past Performance and Price. The Government may award to a higher-priced offeror if it is determined that the benefit of its superior past performance is worth the additional price, or an award may be made to a lower-priced offeror if their past performance is not considered to be worth a price premium.

4. Vendor Responsibilities: Vendors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and, in the format, specified in RFO 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors -- Commercial Items. Vendors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their quote (for example, the failure of a past performance) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the vendor has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Interchanges between the Government and vendors 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.

5. Government Discretion Regarding Interchanges: The Government intends to award without Interchanges with respective vendors in accordance with RFO 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 quotation. 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.

(End Addendum to RFO 52.212-2, Evaluation)