Exhibit 3-Addendum to 52.212-2.docx

ATTACHMENT 2: ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

EXHIBIT 2

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

ADDENDUM-1 TO: 52.212-2 - EVALUATION CRITERIA:

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

Factor 1 – Technical Acceptability Factor 2 – Past Performance, and Factor 3 – Price

(b) Basis for Award: Award of this will be made on a competitive best value basis, using “best value tradeoff” among price and non-price factors. A best value tradeoff process will be used; thus, the Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced offeror, or other than the offeror with the highest rated non-price offer. Past Performance will be evaluated independently from the other non-price evaluation factors using different standards. The non-price evaluation factors numbered in descending order of importance, are as follows:

(1) Technical Capability,

(2) Past Performance, and

(3) Price

Government evaluators will not assume that the offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the offer.

After the above non-price factors are rated individually, an overall rating will be assigned collectively to the factor. If the above non-price evaluation factor receives an individual rating of “Unacceptable”, the collective overall rating will also be “Unacceptable”. In addition, price offers that are not found fair and/or reasonable will be rated "Unacceptable". Only offers receiving an overall rating of “Exceeds”, or “Acceptable” will be considered for award.

The non-price factors are more important than price. As the collective non-price factors begin to reach equality in the evaluation, price becomes a more important factor in the tradeoff analysis.

(c) Evaluation Criteria: Offers for this requirement will be evaluated using the following criteria:

Factor 1 - Technical Acceptability:

An evaluation for technical acceptability will be made to ensure satisfactory responsiveness to the requirements set forth in this RFQ. The non-price factor will be rated “Exceeds”, “Acceptable”, or “Unacceptable” using the following rating standards:

The degree to which the Offeror’s technical quotation demonstrates that the offeror can provide the requested equipment maintenance, warranties, and software subscriptions with the requested technical capabilities/specifications and maintenance support described in the RFQ and can meet the delivery schedule. The vendor should clearly list out if they meet or do not meet requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), explain how they meet or do not meet each requirement including appropriate references (for example, see page 3 of warranty, see attached certification, etc.). The Offeror should provide a copy of the warranty and maintenance support they will provide that meets and/or exceeds minimum requirements of the contract including but not limited to software support, Authority to Operate status and updates (if applicable), and software updates. The Offeror shall provide a written quotation that clearly reflects the technical capability to perform the services, and their understanding of the requirements set forth in the PWS. The Offeror’s quote shall include evidence of being OEM certified to provide the required maintenance plan in accordance with the PWS and RFQ. Quotations shall be clear, coherent, and prepared in sufficient detail for effective evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria. The Government will evaluate only one (1) quotation from the prime Offeror and maximum page limit for Technical Capability is three (3) pages. The Government will not accept alternative quotations.

Factor 2 - Past Performance:

The Government will conduct an evaluation of the Offerors Past Performance in accordance with FAR 13.106- 2(b)(3). Past Performance consists of two aspects for evaluation, past performance relevancy and performance confidence; thus, the Offeror will be assigned two ratings for past performance.

· First, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance references obtained online, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and/or Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), etc.

· Second, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance references obtained online to determine the quality of work performed and assess the level of expectation that the Offeror can successfully perform the required effort.

· In the case of an Offeror who has no recent/relevant performance record available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment 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 will be determined to have “Unknown Confidence” for its past performance evaluation factor.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Standards for the Non-Price Quotation:

Past Performance Confidence Assessments Standards for the Non-Price Quotation:

Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknow Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Factor 3 – Price:

The Offeror shall complete Attachment-1-Pricing-Sheet and is responsible for ensuring that the calculations submitted are complete and correct. The Offeror’s proposed price shall be evaluated separately from the non-price evaluation factor. Price evaluation is to determine whether the Offeror’s proposed price is fair and reasonable in accordance with RFO FAR 12.204(a). Price analysis will be used to determine the total evaluated price to support the selection of the best value offered to the Government.

(d) 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. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(e) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror(s) within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding 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.

(End of provision)