Addendum 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 7 August.pdf

Addendum to 52.212-1- Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Sep 2023)

***THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD***

Addendum to 52.212-1(a), NAICS code and small business size standard. The NAICS code is 532490 and the size standard is $40M for this requirement.

Addendum to 52.212-1 (b), Submission of Offers. Submit signed and dated offers in accordance with block 8 of the SF1449 and any amendments.

General Instructions.

A. To ensure timely equitable evaluation of the offer, the offeror must follow the instructions contained herein. and Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including

i. Terms and conditions

ii. Representation and certifications.

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for an award.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

B. The offer shall include three separate parts:

i. Part I – Price;

ii. Part II – Technical; and

iii. Part III – Past Performance.

C. Complete the necessary fill-ins certifications in provisions and in the on-line Representations and

Certifications at Sam.gov. Return the provision FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and

Certifications – Commercial Items along with the offer. For other provisions and clauses in the solicitation, the offeror is required to submit the pages that require an offeror fill-in.

D. Points of Contact: All communications shall be submitted via e-mail to all the following personnel and e-mail addresses:

A1C Douglas McGee, e-mail douglas.mcgee.1@us.af.mil

SrA Abigail Turek, e-mail abigail.turek@us.af.mil

E. Questions must be submitted via email to the personnel noted above. All questions are due on 14 July 2025 at 9:00 AM CST. All questions and answers will be posted to SAM.gov after the question due date.

F. Offer Submission Instructions: Offers must be submitted electronically via e-mail to the personnel noted above. All documents submitted must be saved in .pdf format and shall follow the instructions in FAR 52.212-1. All quotations are due 15 August 2025 2:00 PM CST. Late offers will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f) “Late submission, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of mailto:douglas.mcgee.1@us.af.mil mailto:tyler_john.peterson@us.af.mil 1252690472A Highlight

1252690472A Highlight

1252690472A Highlight offers.”

Offers shall be in 8 1/2” X 11” page. A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information. The text size shall be no less than 12 pitch. Offers shall use at least 1-inch margins on the top and bottom and 1 inch side margins.

Copies and Page Limits. Evaluators will only read up to the maximum number of pages specified. If the page limit is exceeded, the excess pages will not be evaluated.

G. Special Instructions

Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture Documentation (if applicable): Failure to submit this documentation, if offeror is claiming this in their business approach, will render the offeror’s offer non-responsive and no further evaluation of the offeror’s offer will be conducted.

Teaming Arrangements/Joint Venture Documentation (if applicable): If Teaming Arrangements are contemplated, they must comply with the appropriate Federal Regulations (13 C.F.R. Part 121 (Size

Regulations), Part 124 (8(a) & SDB) and Part 125 (Government Contracting Programs))

The Joint Venture Arrangement must be received by SBA prior to offer due date and approved before award of any resulting contract. If the offer is contemplating a Joint Venture on this project, the offer must advise the offeror’s assigned SBA Business Opportunity Specialist (BOS) as soon as possible. It is also recommended that the arrangement be submitted as soon as practicable to ensure compliance with established regulations. Any corrections and/or changes needed can be made only when your SBA

BOS has adequate time for a thorough review before the offer due date. NO CORRECTONS AND/OR

CHANGES IN PROPOSED TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS OR JOINT VENTURES ARE

ALLOWED AFTER TIME OF SUBMISSION OF OFFERS.

Teaming Arrangements as a Prime and Subcontractor relationship (if applicable): Offerors must provide the following information no later than the date and time offers are due:

1. Include size of each concern required at 13 CFR 121.103(h) (l) (2) (ii) and 124.513 (b) (1)

2. Clearly establish roles of each party (who is prime and who is subcontractor, who is responsible for what tasks, contract administration, offers, work management, etc.).

3. Subcontractor’s past performance cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor, only if it is being used as part of the past performance evaluation.

4. Identify each member’s share of the prospective contract, 50/50, 51/49, etc.

5. Include exclusivity that the team members will not be replaced for the duration of the contract, any exceptions should be identified and assurance that the team members are not teaming with another firm for the same

6. Include a statement of acknowledgement that the prime contractor shall remain fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any teaming arrangements between the prime contractor and its subcontractors.

Part I – Price Submission

1. Complete blocks 12, 17a, and 30a, b and c of the Standard Form (SF) 1449. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation, with attachments. The solicitation constitutes the model contract.

2. Quoters shall submit prices using Attachment 2 – Price break down. The pricing schedule must include an effective date and expiration date. Total price including all CLINs shall be included.

3. Quoters shall round to the nearest cent (for example 1.02 not $1.0231). Quoters rejecting the terms and conditions may be excluded from consideration. Total price will be evaluated for price reasonableness IAW at least one of the methods indicated in FAR 13.106-3(a).

4. Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in the Contract Clauses section. The provisions

FAR 52.212-3 shall be returned along with the offer. If the offeror has completed all representations and certifications contained in this solicitation in their SAM registration, the offeror shall state so.

5. Include Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture (if applicable) as a part of Part I.

Part II – Technical Submission: Limited to 8 pages. The

Technical Part shall be comprised of one (1) part.

(1) Technical Capability and Equipment Characteristics

Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical Factor as defined in Addendum 52.212-2. Quotes shall not simply rephrase or restate the Performance Work Statement (PWS) or contain general statements such the technical portion of the offer meets solicitation requirements. Offerors shall assume the

Government has no prior knowledge of the offeror’s experience. The Government will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offer.

Technical Capability and Equipment Characteristics. Offerors shall submit a Technical Capability and

Equipment Characteristics that clearly demonstrates offerors’ technical capability to accomplish the services outlined in the PWS. The document shall identify and write a narrative description for each duty title of the personnel supporting the setup, onsite support, and tear down aspect of the requirement.

Detailed information on the equipment’s characteristics and capabilities quoted on the price list shall also be outlined. Additionally, a short narrative shall be submitted explaining how the offer will support the requirement once a call request is made.

Part III – Past Performance Submission: Limited to 6 pages. Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations are not included in the page limitation.

1. Past Performance. Offerors shall provide adequate past performance information on completed or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government and private) considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed work as identified within the PWS. Offerors must provide past performance information to establish Recency and Relevancy on all Federal contracts before State, local government or private contracts. The Government's evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects (See Teaming Agreements, General Instructions, G), when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of each contract are deemed relevant to complexity and magnitude as related to the requirements of this solicitation and in accordance with FAR 52.212-2. Failure to provide required relevancy description may impact the confidence rating, (i.e. aspects of previous projects should match work elements identified in the Solicitation/PWS).

2. Provide a summary of the previous contracts described above, not to exceed 2 pages of past performance information per reference. The summary should explain what aspects of each contract are deemed recent and relevant as related to the requirements of this solicitation. Failure to provide required relevancy description may impact the confidence rating, (i.e. aspects of previous projects should match work elements identified in the solicitation/PWS). The maximum number of past performance references shall not exceed 3. The summary should not exceed 2 pages per reference (maximum total of 6 pages) and include:

a) Name of project (Contract number, if applicable)

b) Name and address of customer or Government agency

c) Name, telephone, fax number and/or email of customer contact or contracting officer

d) Dollar value

e) Period of performance/Completion date

f) Description of work performed, and how the effort performed is relevant.

g) Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

3. Each proposal shall provide current and relevant information regarding an offeror's actions under previously awarded contracts.

a) Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been completed during the past three (3) years from the issuance month of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

b) Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the Public Address Support Services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude/complexity, contract environment and the cost/price factors of the Hurlburt Field AFB requirement. For each recent or current past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the scope, magnitude/complexity and contract environment aspects (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to efforts that are of the type that are similar in scope, magnitude/complexity, and contract environment when compared to the services described in this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the offeror's past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror or teaming partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

4. In lieu of a Past/Present Performance Questionnaire, if a project is currently available in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the contractor should attach the evaluation to the questionnaire with the relevant solicitation number and submit directly to the 1st Special Operations Contracting Squadron office before the official closing date and time. Electronic submissions shall be sent to:

A1C Douglas McGee, phone 850-884-1263, and e-mail douglas.mcgee.1@us.af.mil

SrA Tyler Peterson, phone 850-884-2097, and e-mail tyler_john.peterson@us.af.mil

5. Lack of any past performance will not automatically disqualify an offeror, but it is a factor that is considered in the Best Value Performance Price Tradeoff Source Selection described in FAR 52.212-2.

6. If the offeror claims there is no past performance, then that status must be identified to the contracting officer no later than the date and time proposals are due from all offerors.

(End of Addendum)

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 – Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

1. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

This acquisition will utilize the best value approach, in which the Government seeks to award to an offeror who provides the greatest confidence that they will meet the Government’s requirements mailto:douglas.mcgee.1@us.af.mil mailto:tyler_john.peterson@us.af.mil affordably. The Best Value technique for this acquisition will be Performance

Price Tradeoff, where technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The evaluation factors are described below:

i. Factor 1: Price

ii. Factor 2: Technical

iii. Factor 3: Past Performance

2. SYNOPSIS OF EVALUATION

STEP ONE: Evaluate all quotations for responsiveness defined as meeting the submitting requirements in Addendum to 52.212-1- Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Products and Commercial Services

(Sep 2023). Cover page will be reviewed and if applicable, any proposed Teaming Arrangement/Joint

Venture documentation for completeness. Teaming Arrangements shall conform to all requirements identified in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of this solicitation and include all elements stated in

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 – Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov

2021). If an offeror is claiming this business approach, failure to submit Teaming Arrangement/Joint

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

STEP TWO: Evaluate prices and order all responsive quotes based upon the quoter’s Total Evaluated

Price (TEP) in ascending order from lowest to highest price.

STEP THREE: The three (3) lowest priced responsive quotes shall be evaluated for technical acceptability. In the event that the lowest three (3) evaluated quotes do not yield a quote with an acceptable technical rating, the evaluation process will continue to the next lowest priced responsive quote until at least three (3) technically acceptable quotes are identified. The three (3) lowest priced, technically acceptable quotes will move to step four (4).

STEP FOUR: Past performance will be evaluated for the lowest three (3) priced technically acceptable quoter UNLESS one (1) of the first two (2) technically acceptable quoters is deemed to have a Very

Relevant past performance rating leading to an adjectival rating of Substantial Confidence, at which past performance evaluations will stop. The Government will proceed to award to the vendor that adheres to the instruction to offerors, has an acceptable rating for the Technical Factor and has a past performance rating that is most beneficial to the government. Should none of the three lowest priced quoters have acceptable past performance, the government will continue to assess the next lowest priced quoter until a vendor with an acceptable rating for the Technical Factor and a past performance rating that is most beneficial to the government is obtained. The Contracting Officer will then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision.

STEP FIVE: Pursuant to FAR 12.602, contract award will be made using Simplified Acquisition

Procedures in accordance with FAR 13.106. The government shall make a best value decision based on the Evaluation Criteria below to the responsible quoter who quote conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

During all stages of the evaluations, the Government reserves the right to engage with one or multiple offerors but is not required to do so. Therefore, offerors should provide their best available pricing in their initial quote.

3. PRICE EVALUATION

Price proposals conforming to all requirements of this solicitation will be ranked based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Total Evaluated Price will be the sum of all prices included on the price list. Prices will be rounded off to two decimal points. Total price will be evaluated for price reasonableness IAW at least one of the methods indicated in FAR 13.106-3(a).

4. TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The three lowest priced offers will be evaluated for technical acceptability. If the three lowest priced offers are not determined technically acceptable, the technical evaluation will continue until at least three offers are determined technically acceptable. The technical evaluation will continue until all offers are evaluated. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for further evaluation.

Evaluation of technical factors will consider the quoter's ability to perform the duties as outlined in the PWS. Quoters will be evaluated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable for Technical Factors. Quotes shall not simply rephrase or restate the PWS or contain general statements such the technical portion of the quoter meets solicitation requirements. Quoters shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of the quoter’s experience. The Government will base its evaluation on the information presented in the quote.

In order to be technically acceptable, the quote must meet all the following criteria:

Subfactor 1: Technical Capability and Equipment Characteristics.

The quote shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical sub factor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in the sub factor.

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Quote meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Quote does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

Subfactor 1 – The Technical Capability and Equipment Characteristics Document will be rated acceptable if it demonstrates a reasonable approach to the contract in regards to:

a) Identification of key personnel

b) Identification and acceptability to standards outlined in the PWS for equipment being used

c) How the offeror will support the requirement once a call request is made

5. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy and quality of the quoters’ provided past performance information, and other past performance information data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources to include, but not limited to: Contract

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); Federal Awardee Performance and

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and other databases

Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency. Recent is defined as work within the last three (3) years from the issue month of the solicitation. The information provided must be on efforts/contracts that are ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy and rated as relevant, or not relevant, according to the table below.

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be defined as Very Relevant, the effort shall have included all of the three (3) services listed below (1-3):

(1) Performed set up and tear down of public address support services, and

(2) Conducted onsite support by running the mixer, playing music, and troubleshooting issues as they arise, and

(3) Provided ALL the equipment in the price list for the event

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be defined as Relevant, the effort shall have included the two (2) of the services listed below (1-3):

(1) Performed set up and tear down of public address support services, and

(2) Conducted onsite support by running the mixer, playing music, and troubleshooting issues as they arise, and

(3) Provided ALL the equipment in the price list for the event

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In order to be defined as Somewhat Relevant, the effort shall have included one (1) of the services listed below (1-3)

(1) Performed set up and tear down of public address support services, and

(2) Conducted onsite support by running the mixer, playing music, and troubleshooting issues as they arise, and

(3) Provided ALL the equipment in the price list for the event

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

(1) No performance in setting up and tearing down of public address support services, and

(2) No onsite support conducted by running the mixer, playing music, and troubleshooting issues as they arise, and

(3) Has not provided all the equipment in the price list for the event

Quality of Performance. All recent past performance that is determined to be relevant will be reviewed to determine the quality of the offeror’s performance and general trends of the performance.

One of the following confidence ratings will be assigned to the evaluated offer:

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. This is the highest past performance rating an offeror can obtain.

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.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is not recent or relevant.

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.

(End of Addendum to FAR 52.212-2)

Attachment 6 – Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 FA441725Q0062 – Public Address Support Services

General Instructions.