Attachment 5 52.212-2 - Evaluation Addendum.pdf

Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Feb 2026)

ADDENDUM TO RFO PROVISION 52.212-2: Paragraph (a) is tailored as follows:

Evaluation:

IAW RFO 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services, the Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Quoters whose quote conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government which consists of Price, Technical Acceptability, and Past Performance. The following factors will be used to evaluate quotes:

1. Price

2. Technical

3. Past Performance

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive, best value continuum using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. Technical elements will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable for each solicitation response. Past Performance will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable. Qualifications will be clear, and objectives will be outlined in the RFQ. The evaluation process shall proceed as indicated below:

Evaluation Approach:

Step 1: All contractors will be evaluated for responsiveness. Responsiveness is determined by verifying compliance with RFO 52.212-1 and its addendum.

Step 2: All responsive contractors will be ordered, by price, from the lowest to the highest Total Evaluated Price (TEP). A contractor's TEP is depicted in Attachment 2, Quote Schedule Worksheet, on the Price Schedule Tab. The TEP is comprised of the total contract value (base and all options) plus the 6-month option available at RFO 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.

Pricing for RFO 52.217-8 is determined by taking the "amount" of the most recent option year exercised and dividing it by two (2).

Step 3: Technical evaluations will start with the lowest TEP quote and continue until three (3) solicitation responses are determined to be technically acceptable, or until all solicitation responses have been evaluated, whichever comes first.

Step 4. The solicitation responses determined to be technically acceptable will then be evaluated for past performance until three (3) technically acceptable solicitation responses have been determined to have acceptable past performance or until all solicitation responses have been evaluated, whichever comes first. Steps three (3) and four (4) will continue until at least three (3) solicitation responses have been determined acceptable in technical and have acceptable past performance, or until all solicitation responses have been evaluated.

Step 5. The Government will make a determination of price fair and reasonable.

Evaluation Factors for Award:

Price Foreword: The government will evaluate quotes for award purposes based on their TEP.

The government may determine that a solicitation response is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

Volume I Price:

a.) Initially, solicitation responses shall be ordered from lowest to highest TEP, as previously defined.

b.) For evaluation purposes, RFO 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options and Pricing will be evaluated and applied to this evaluation. To evaluate the impact of clause RFO 52.217-8, the base and all options will be averaged by adding all together and dividing by two (2).

c.) The TEP will be evaluated to determine whether it is reasonable. A reasonable price/cost represents a price/cost that provides best value to the government, considering market prices, the technical and functional capabilities of the contractor, and risk. Additionally, the government reserves the right to, but is not required to, conduct a price realism analysis on quotes that appear to be exceptionally low and not supported by the contractor's technical approach. In instances where a contractor's proposed price(s) appears exceptionally low, contractors may be requested to address this disparity by providing evidence of their capability and/or performance at similar price(s). The burden of proof as to price credibility rests with the contractor. An exceptionally or unrealistically low quote that's left unexplained may pose an unacceptable risk to the government and may be a reason to reject a contractor's solicitation response.

d.) The government anticipates adequate price competition and intends to award a contract without exchanges with respective contractors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct exchanges if deemed in its best interest.

Volume II Technical:

a.) The technical volume will be evaluated as either acceptable or unacceptable for each subfactor.

i. Acceptable is defined as: "Required documents clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation".

ii. Unacceptable is defined as: "Required documents do not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation".

b.) The technical volume is comprised of four (4) subfactors, as listed below. An overall technical rating will be assigned; failure to be assigned an acceptable in any technical subfactor will render the enter factor unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award.

Only those responses determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of exchanges, will be considered for award. However, the contractor is reminded that the government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial solicitation response, as received, without exchanges, and may conduct exchanges will all, some, or none of the contractors.

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria Subfactor 1: Technical Approach – The quoter shall clearly explain how the quoter intends to ensure successful contract performance IAW the PWS, to include the requirement of a site manage with greater than 10 years of experience per PWS 1.1.7. This will include a plan to accomplish these services in the event of personnel shortages, equipment failures, and surge or crisis situations.

Technical Approach shall not simply rephrase or restate PWS or contain general statements such as "Standard procedures will be employed". Quotes shall provide convincing rationale addressing how the technical portion of the Quote meets solicitation requirements.

Subfactor 2: Quality Control Plan - Quoters shall submit a Quality Control Plan that addresses all requirements of PWS. The plan must address methods to be used for identifying and preventing deficiencies before the performance becomes unacceptable. The plan shall also include procedures to identify unfavorable performance trends, problem areas, and the corrective actions that would be taken.

1. The quoter demonstrates effective and sufficient details and summarizes the quoter’s technical approach in ensuring performance per the PWS Section 1;

Description of Services, and solicitation requirements. The standard is met when the conditions accurately describe performance in accordance with the PWS.

2. The quoter demonstrates effective and logical processes for Quality Control to identify and prevent deficiencies during contract performance. Functional procedures for identifying unfavorable performance trends, problem areas, and corrective actions in accordance with PWS chapter 4.6 and 4.7.

Subfactor 3: Contractor personnel Training Plan - Quoters shall submit a Contractor personnel Training Plan that addresses all requirements of PWS and ensures personnel are trained and certified on specific job tasks to be performed. Address plan to maintain training log for contractors on file that shall be made available 24 hours a day upon request.

3. The quoter demonstrates effective and logical processes for maintaining up to date training and recordkeeping documentation verifying qualifications to perform required tasks in accordance with PWS chapter 1, chapter 3.3, and chapter 4.5.

Subfactor 4: Mission Essential Plan - Shall submit a mission essential plan that sufficiently and clearly demonstrates the offeror’s ability to perform essential

4. Sufficiently and clearly demonstrates the offeror’s ability to perform essential Contractor services IAW R-DFARS 252.237-7024.

Contractor services IAW R-DFARS 252.237- 7024.

Volume III Past Performance

Recent and relevant past performance is defined as past performance occurring within the last five (5) years and with a period of performance of six (6) months or more.. Relevant past performance is defined as past performance providing candidates for services similar in scope to this requirement and complexity. The Government will consider relevancy, recency, extent of the past performance and the size and complexity of the past performance relative to this solicitation’s requirement submitted by quoters as well as any information gathered by the Contracting Officer. In the case of a contractor without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the contractor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Quoter shall be determined to have unknown past performance. Unknown or neutral past performance, in the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered acceptable a.) An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent.

Recent contracts are contracts which have been performed for at least 6 months and within the last 5 years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. Contract performance that does not meet these criteria will not be considered or evaluated.

b.) Relevant performance includes performance efforts involving Aircraft Corrosion Control services that involved similar scope ranging from Aircraft Corrosion Control services (such as coordinating tows, washes, de-paneling, lubrication, and other requirements outlined in the PWS), magnitude of effort, Complexity (Emergency Aircraft Wash, Corrosion Control and Miscellaneous Maintenance Services), contract type (Firm-fixed price), this solicitation requires, as identified in the table of Relevancy Definitions below:

Past Performance Relevancy:

Relevancy Definition Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Past Performance Acceptability:

Definition Rating Based on the Quoter's performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Quoter will successfully perform the required effort, or the Quoter's performance record is unknown.

Acceptable

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

Unacceptable

(End of provision)