COCESS Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation- Commercial Products and Commercial Services.pdf

Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (DEVIATION DATE)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) PRICE

(2) TECHNICAL

(3) PAST PERFORMANCE

Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price when being evaluated.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. The evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a bindging contract without further action by either party. Before the offer"s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), 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 - EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (DEVIATION DATE)

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1.1. This is a Subjective Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) Parts 12 and 15, Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (R-DFARS), and Defense Air Force RFO Supplement (DAFRFOS). Award will be made based on the Best Value, meaning the Government seeks to award to an offeror who provides the greatest confidence that they will meet the Government"s requirements affordably. The Best Value technique chosen for this acquisition will be Subjective Tradeoff, where technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price. No contract award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility in accordance with RFO 9.104.

1.2. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications. The Government intends to award a contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO), as supplemented, whose offer conforms to solicitation requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the solicitation and is judged, based on the evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government.

1.3. The Government intends to evaluate offers and make an award without negotiations. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their written proposals (e.g., defining the relevance of the offeror"s technical information and adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor clerical errors. Any such exchange between the offeror and the Government will be for clarification only and will not constitute negotiations within the meaning of RFO 15.2. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a technical, past performance and price standpoint.

1.4 Although negotiations are not intended, if at any time during the evaluation process it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to open and hold negotiations, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the selection decision.

1.4.1 Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further negotiation and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror's opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.), rather it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

Below is a synopsis of the evaluation steps; the evaluation process is defined in more detail immediately following the synopsis.

2. SYNOPSIS OF EVALUATION:

The first step of the evaluation process is to review the cover page and if applicable, any proposed Team Arrangements/Joint Venture Documentation for completeness.

Teaming arrangements shall conform to all requirements identified in the Addendum to RFO 52.212-1 of this solicitation and including all elements stated in Addendum to

RFO 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services. If an offeror is claiming this business approach, failure to submit Teaming

ArrangemenVJoint Venture documentation will render the offerors proposal non-responsive and no further evaluation will be conducted.

2.1 The second step of the evaluation process is to evaluate prices and rank all responsive proposals by overall total evaluated price (TEP) from lowest to highest. The

TEP shall be the sum of:

(1) The total price of Solicitation Attachment K- Common COCESS Items Price List

2.2. The evaluation team will then proceed to the third step. In the third step, the first five (5) of the lowest priced, responsive proposals shall be evaluated for technical acceptability. Following the technical evaluation, the past performance of only those bids that are determined to be technically acceptable will be evaluated. In the event that this process does not yield at least two (2) offers with an acceptable technical rating and at least one (1) of those offerors has a Substantial Confidence past performance rating, the evaluation process will continue until these conditions are met or until all proposals are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision. The Source Selection Authority may also make the determination it is in the best interest of the

Government to evaluate all offerors for technical acceptability and past performance prior to rendering the best value award decision.

3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors, which are (I) Price (II) Technical, and (Ill) Past Performance. All offeror cover pages and (if applicable) teaming arrangements will be reviewed for completeness in accordance with the requirements stated in Addendum to RFO 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services to determine the offeror responsive or non- responsive. Only those offers determined complete and responsive will be considered for further evaluation.

3.1 FACTOR 1: PRICE

Offers conforming to all requirements of the solicitation will be ordered from lowest to highest according to Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP will be calculated as follows:

3.1.1. TEP = Total Evaluated Price of Attachment K, Common COCESS Items Price List

3.1.2. Attachment K, Common COCESS Items Price List shall be completed utilizing the discount coefficient percentages proposed in Attachment Y, Pricing Discount

Coefficient Table. Discrepancies in prices between Attachment K, Common COCESS Items Price List and Attachment Y, Pricing Discount Coefficient Table may render an offer as unacceptable.

3.1.3. Attachment K, Common COCESS Items Price List is for evaluation purposes only and will not be awarded as an attachment to the resulting contract. However, Attachment Y, Pricing Discount Coefficient Table will be placed on the awarded offeror's contract and will be strictly enforced to determine not-to-exceed prices for corresponding items (see SOW para 1.4.2).

3.1.4. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each offer to determine whether item prices are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed for similar items. An offer may be rejected if the Source Selection Authority determines prices are significantly unbalanced or if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government.

3.2. FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL

Technical evaluations will start with the first five (5) of the lowest priced, responsive proposals. If at least two (2) of the first five lowest priced offers are not determined technically acceptable, the technical evaluation will continue until two (2) offerors are found technically acceptable or until all offers are evaluated or the Source Selection

Authority opens negotiations if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

3.2.1. The rating assigned to this technical evaluation factor will be based on the offeror's proposed technical volume. The validity and thoroughness of the offeror's technical volume will be evaluated as specific evidence of the offeror's understanding and capability to perform this requirement. An overall rating will be assigned; failure to be assigned an acceptable rating in any technical subfactor will render the entire technical volume of an offeror as unacceptable.

3.2.2 Evaluators will assign a rating as outlined below in Table C-1.

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

3.2.3. Technical Subfactor 1: Store Management Plan

Offerors shall submit a Store Management Plan that clearly demonstrates offerors understanding of the management and staffing requirements of the SOW. The Store

Management Plan will be rated acceptable if it meets the following minimum requirements:

3.2.3.1. Offeror shall submit a Store Management Plan that:

a. Identifies workforce composition (to include seasonal hiring if proposed) showing labor category, experience, contractor manning equivalents (CMEs), and associated number of hours for each functional area to meet all COCESS SOW requirements for the base period and all option years.

b. Includes an organizational chart that identifies key personnel such as the on-site contract manager, alternate contract manager(s), and all other personnel offerors propose to manage and staff this requirement.

c. Offeror submits a staffing plan that details how the offeror intends to recruit, retain, and replace sufficient personnel who have the knowledge, experience, and skills to perform as required in the COCESS SOW.

d. Identify how the offeror intends to continue uninterrupted services during personnel absences, such as sickness, vacations, etc. without any degradation in services provided.

3.2.4. Technical Subfactor 2: Transition Plan

Offerors shall submit a Transition Plan that clearly demonstrates a reasonable approach to how the offeror intends to manage, staff, schedule, and complete all required tasks within thirty (30) days of contract award so that the contractor will be able to perform IAW the SOW on the first day of the performance period without degradation in services from the previous contract.

3.2.4.1. Offeror shall submit a Transition Plan that:

a. Identifies plan for obtaining base and Common Access Card (CAC) access for personnel. b. Identifies plan to stock the COCESS store with recommended store stock items.

3.3 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate past performance for only those offers that have been determined to be technically acceptable. The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror"s past performance by analyzing offeror provided past performance information, past performance questionnaires received, and other past performance information data independently obtained from Government and/or commercial sources which may include, but not limited to: the Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); or other databases.

3.3.1. Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency. Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation. Recency will be evaluated as "meets" or "does not meet."

3.3.2. Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy. The offeror shall identify what elements of each contract are deemed relevant to this solicitation and indicate what percentage of service was performed by the offeror (prime), subcontractor (if applicable) and teaming contractor (if applicable).The final determination of the identified and demonstrated relevancy elements of each contract will be the decision of the Government. Relevant past performance requires performance of COCESS contracts similar in scope, magnitude (dollar value), and complexity to the requirements defined in this solicitation. Relevancy will be evaluated as "meets" or "does not meet."

3.3.3. Finally, Past Performance will be evaluated for quality and assigned a performance confidence assessment rating. Performance confidence assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation's requirements based upon the offeror's past performance information. Performance confidence will be assessed as one of the following rating categories:

Table C-2. Past Performance Confidence Ratings

Rating Description

Subst antial

Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required

Confid effort.

ence

Satisf actory

Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the

Confid required effort.

ence

Neutra I

Confid No recenUrelevant performance record is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can ence be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of performance.

Limite d

Based on the offeror's recenUrelevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required

Confid effort.

ence

No Co Based on the offeror's recenUrelevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required nfiden ce effort.

**NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see RFO 15.202 (c)(1)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or "neutral") past performance.

3.3.4. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

3.3.5 Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal 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 confidence 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 negotiations and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

3.3.6. At a minimum, the first five (5) lowest priced offers will be evaluated for technical acceptability. Following the technical evaluation, past performance evaluations will be conducted for those offers determined to be technically acceptable. Evaluations will continue as necessary until at least two (2) offers are determined technically acceptable and one (1) of those offerors is determined to have a Substantial Confidence Past Performance rating or until all offers are evaluated. The Source Selection

Authority will then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision, or may open negotiations if determined to be in the best interest of the

Government.

(End of provision)

RFO Clauses Incorporated by Reference

Number

52.217-5

Tille

Evaluation of Options.

RFO Clauses Incorporated by Full Text

52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Producls and Commercial Services.

Effective Date

Feb 2026

(Feb2026)

Alternate/ Variation

Deviation Effecliva

Date

Evaluation-Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Deviation Date)

(a) Evaluation factors. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors will be used to evaluate offers:

(i )Technical Capability and Past Performance (ii) Price.

For requests tor proposals, Technical Capability and Past Performance Evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than than price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. The evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).