6. Revolutionary FAR Overhaul 52.212-2.pdf

Evaluation Factors for Award

52.212-2 ADDENDUM

ADDENDA TO RFO CLAUSE 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND

COMMERCIAL SERVICES (Feb 2026).

Addenda to 52.212-2(a), is tailored as follows:

The Government shall award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be the 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

1. Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to price.

Award shall be made to the 8(a) offeror whose proposal offers the best value based upon the evaluation criteria outlines in this RFP. By submission of its proposal, the offeror accedes to all RFP requirements. If five (5) or fewer proposals are received, the Government shall evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability. If more than five (5) proposals are received, the Government shall then evaluate the five (5) lowest priced proposals for technical acceptability. However, the Government reserves the right to evaluate additional proposals for technical acceptability if deemed to be in its best interest. If additional proposals are evaluated for technical acceptability, they shall be evaluated in the order of increasing total evaluated price, when the agency determines that none of the initial five (5) lowest priced proposals are qualified as acceptable. In the absence of interchanges, the agency shall reject and not consider for award any proposal found technically unacceptable and ineligible for award under the terms of this RFP.

(a) Price Evaluation. The Government shall evaluate the price, and any other relevant proposal data submitted, to determine if proposed prices are reasonable and realistic. An offeror's proposal prices shall be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Schedule of Services by the proposed unit price for each CLIN. The extended amounts for each CLIN shall then be totaled to obtain the total for each performance period. The total for the basic performance period shall then be added to the total for each ordering period to obtain the total proposed price. All proposed prices for all contract periods will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism, which may be determined based on competitive pricing and prices submitted by the competition, historical pricing, current market conditions, comparison to the Independent Government Estimate, and/or other price analysis techniques. Evaluation of ordering period prices shall not obligate the Government to exercise the ordering period. The Government may require submission of information other than cost or pricing data to the extent necessary to evaluate price reasonableness and realism. After price evaluation is complete, the government shall evaluate the five (5) lowest priced reasonable and realistic proposals for technical acceptability.

(b) Technical Acceptability. To be eligible for award, an offer must be technically acceptable. To be acceptable all technical subfactors must be rated technically acceptable. If any technical sub-factor is rated unacceptable, the overall proposal shall receive a rating of unacceptable. Only proposals rated as technically acceptable can receive an award.

i. Each technical factor will receive one of the ratings listed below:

Acceptable - Proposal meets the requirements of the RFP.

Unacceptable - Proposal does not meet the requirements of the RFP.

ii. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical sub-factors:

a) Sub-Factor 1: Recruit, Hire, and Retain Qualified Personnel.

Offerors shall demonstrate an acceptable approach to recruit, hire and retain qualified and certified personnel capable of satisfying the requirements included in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 2, (Attachment 1). Simply restating the contents in section 2 of the PWS shall not be deemed as a technical approach.

Standard: A technically acceptable standard is met when an offeror provides a sufficiently detailed technical approach to recruit, hire and retain qualified personnel that clearly meets the required credentials as outlined in the PWS.

b) Subfactor 2: Quality Control Plan (QCP).

The Technical response shall include a Quality Control Plan (QCP) that (1) identified the process employed to inspect the services/deliverables in the PWS Section 3; (2) addresses roles and authorities of the Primary Quality Personnel, and (3) addresses methods used for identifying and preventing defects before performance becomes unacceptable and identifies corrective actions.

Standard: A technically acceptable standard is met when a offeror provides the QCP identifying (1) the process employed to inspect the services/deliverables in PWS Section 3, (2) addresses roles and authorities of the Primary Quality Personnel, and (3) addresses methods used for identifying and preventing defect before performance becomes unacceptable and identifies corrective actions.

(c) Performance Confidence Assessment. Using past performance questionnaires, data provided by the offeror, and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, the contracting officer will evaluate recent and relevant past performance information and use this information to develop a performance confidence assessment. The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating performance confidence:

i. Past Performance. The Government shall accomplish the past performance evaluation, assigning a performance confidence assessment rating to the offeror's proposal based on performance ratings of recent and relevant efforts. The Government shall seek recent and relevant performance information from: Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports, and the past and present efforts provided by the offeror, Past Performance List of References (Attachment 2), Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment

3) and/or data independently obtained from other government or commercial sources.

The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will performance major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of these past efforts to the proposed effort and when they clearly demonstrate that the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent of affiliated division will fully affect performance of the instant acquisition. The past performance of teaming partners or subcontractors who are proposed to perform less than 20% of the work and are not proposed to perform critical aspects, will not be evaluated.

ii. Recency. Present and Past Performance efforts will first be evaluated for recency. To be recent, some portion of the performance efforts must have occurred within the last three (3) years prior to the issue date of the RFP. Performance not qualifying as recent shall not receive further evaluation or consideration. Non-recent performance shall not be evaluated for relevancy or quality of performance and will not be considered for award.

iii. Relevancy. The Government shall next evaluate the relevancy of performance that qualifies as recent. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity for the effort described in this RFP. Performance that qualifies as relevant will be categorized as either relevant or not relevant. Performance that does not meet the definition of relevant shall not be evaluated for quality of performance and will not be considered for award. The relevancy definitions are as follows:

Relevant - Present/Past Performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort as this RFP.

Not Relevant - Present/Past Performance does not meet the necessary requirements to be deemed relevant.

iv. Quality of Performance. Performance efforts that qualify as recent and relevant will then be evaluated for quality of performance. Each evaluated effort will receive one of the following performance rating: Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory and Unknown.

PAST PERFORMANCE RATING DEFINITION

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements, and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions Unknown (Neutral)

Unknown (Neutral) No relevant past performance information is available, or it is so spares that no meaningful past performance rating can be assigned

Based of the evaluation of individual performance efforts, the Government will then develop one of the following Performance Confidence Assessments for each offeror whose past performance is evaluated.

RATING DEFINITION

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror's performance record, the

Government has high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Unknown Confidence No performance record is identifiable or the offeror's performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The Government will generally apply the following relationship between performance ratings and performance confidence. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or whose performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned may receive the rating of "Unknown Confidence", meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) 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 or present performance effort that is rated less than satisfactory overall or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

(End of Addenda)

2. Basis for Award. Award will be made utilizing the following process:

(a) The Government will first evaluate the past performance for the technically acceptable offer with the lowest evaluated reasonable and realistic price. If the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated reasonable and realistic price has an overall "Substantial Confidence" performance rating, then that offer represents the most advantageous for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award will be made to that offeror without consideration or evaluation of the past performance of any other offeror contingent upon a determination of contractor responsibility for that offeror.

(b) If the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated reasonable and realistic price does not have an overall "Substantial Confidence" performance rating, the past performance evaluation process will continue (in order by lowest evaluated price) until a technically acceptable offeror with a reasonable and realistic price is found with an overall "Substantial Confidence" performance rating or all technically acceptable offers with a reasonable and realistic price have been evaluated. At this point, the Government will conduct an integrated most advantageous assessment of all technically acceptable offers with a reasonable and realistic price whose past performance was evaluated. In either event, the Government will award the responsible, technically acceptable offeror with a reasonable and realistic price who proposal offers the greatest overall benefits to the Government.