Section 52.212 -1 and -2_4 August 2025.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212‐1 Instructions to Offerors Commercial Items (Sep 2023)

FAR 52.212-1 is tailored in accordance with FAR 12.302

1. Proposal Format

1.1. General: The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror's proposal for this solicitation. Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. If a joint venture arrangement exists for this acquisition, the offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement that is signed and dated by all joint venture members as part of the proposal submission. Offerors shall submit only one proposal for the Facilitate Other Maintenance (FOM) as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror. Proposals must be submitted through PIEE no later than the date and time specified in the combined synopsis/ solicitation document. Proposals must be valid for 365 days. Questions concerning the solicitation must be received by 20 June 2025 4:00 PM EDT.

1.2. Communications: Email may be used to transmit such information, only if the email can be sent encrypted, and must include "Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104" in the subject line of the email. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, offerors must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption or a different email product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. If you intend to submit your source selection information via encrypted email, you will need to contact the Buyer/Contracting Officer indicated below prior to that first submittal in order to exchange certificates used for encryption. To ensure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information). When submitting source selection information via email, file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted. Send encrypted emails to contract specialist Kyle McDermott kyle.mcdermott.1@us.af.mil and Contracting Officer, shelly.bachison@us.af.mil. Proposals shall be submitted through PIEE

2. Volume Organization

2.1. General: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in three separate volumes as set forth below:

Volume # Page Limit

Copies Description

I N/A 1 Completed Request for Proposal (RFP) II 40 1 Written Technical Proposal III 25 1 Price Proposal

2.2. In addition to the page limitations set forth above, proposal volumes shall comply with the following format:

mailto:kyle.mcdermott.1@us.af.mil mailto:shelly.bachison@us.af.mil

2.2.1. The submission in PIEE will show the time and date of receipt. Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number and the offeror's name and address, and the number of the Volume, i.e. I, II, etc. Proposals shall be in the English language and all monies shall be proposed in United States dollars.

2.2.2. Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12 and should be on 8 1/2 x 11-inch paper. Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch and each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively.

Elaborate formats, or color presentations are not desired or required. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., shall not be greater than 8 1/2” x 11”. Each volume within the proposal shall be separately tabbed and identified.

2.2.3. The page limitation for Volume II, Written Technical Proposal, is 40 pages. The page limitation includes any charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., but excludes any cover page, table of contents or list of acronyms (if utilized). Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and either retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation, or, sent back to the offeror.

2.2.4. Page limitations may be placed on Evaluation Notices (ENs), if issued. The specified limits for

EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors or on the EN form itself.

2.2.5. Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked.

2.2.6. Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

3. Volume I, Completed RFP

3.1 General: Volume I, Completed RFP shall consist of the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require "fill-in" information are appropriately completed.

4. Volume II, Written Technical Proposal

4.1. General: The written technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and include all the information required by this provision in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities, and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's technical proposal.

4.2. Format and Specific Content: The following information shall be provided in the written technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess technical acceptability in accordance with Clause 52.212-2, Evaluation -- Commercial Products and Commercial Services. The written technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors to describe the offeror's proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the PWS.

4.3. Technical Acceptability:

4.3.1. Subfactor 1: Program Management & Reporting

The offeror shall submit an approach for Program Management in accordance with PWS paragraph 2.1. The offeror shall describe in detail the offeror's management approach toward accomplishing the requirements of the PWS. For those requirements, the proposal shall reference the paragraph(s) of the PWS.

4.3.1.1. Program Management Requirements

The offeror's approach shall address all requirements IAW the following Paragraphs of the PWS:

a) Management Plan (Paragraph 2.1)

b) Safety Program Plan (Paragraph 13.2 and all subparagraphs, Appendix C)

c) Transition Plan (CDRL A002, DID DI-MGMT-80790, paragraph 5.3 and all subparagraphs)

4.3.1.2. Multiple Site Supervision

The approach must describe the offeror's plan to manage multiple individual requirements or teams in different locals within the FOM program. An example of this would be standing up or providing services concurrently in different locals. IAW PWS Paragraph 1, 1.1, 2.3.3, 2.3.3.1.

4.3.2. Subfactor 2: Performance Requirements

4.3.2.1. Provide Qualified Personnel

The offeror shall provide a sound project baseline and methodology expressed in terms of appropriate qualifications, skill sets, and clearances to successfully complete the technical and management requirements of the PWS. Appendix D of the PWS contains Historical Workload Data to assist in determining the number of personnel necessary. The offeror may propose the number of personnel they believe to be necessary to completely fulfill the requirements of the contract.

4.3.2.2. Security Clearance

The offeror shall provide a level of detail which identifies a clear methodology or plan to provide a workforce that possesses and is able to maintain the appropriate security clearance upon the start of the contract Period of Performance. IAW PWS Paragraph(s) 2.3.2 and all subparagraphs. A sound methodology or experience is required.

4.3.3. Subfactor 3: Quality System Plan

The offeror shall provide a plan for a Quality System Management describing the methodology by which the offeror shall ensure quality effectiveness and comprehensive management; a process to identify, track, report on, and analyze quality issues, and trends; and a strategy to identify and resolve deficiencies, identify potential improvements, maintain inspection documentation, and make quality control inspections and corrective actions available to the Government. The Quality System Plan shall address all requirements. IAW PWS Paragraphs 5.2 and all subparagraphs.

5. Volume III, Price Proposal

5.1. General

As defined in FAR 52.212-1 of the RFP, which will be assessed from the information provided in this volume, the pricing criteria will be as follows:

1) Reasonableness

2) Balance

3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Offerors should review FAR 52.212-1 criteria to ensure the minimum requirements are met.

Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of the offeror's proposal. Note that unrealistically low or unreasonably high proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an unreasonable proposal. Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject the offeror's proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the offeror. The Price Proposal shall be organized according to the following general outline:

Section Title 1 Table of Contents 2 Listing of Abbreviations and Acronyms (used within cost/price volume) 3 General 3-1 TEP Matrix Worksheet

5.2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Matrix, Attachment

Offerors shall input into the attached TEP Pricing Matrix, fully burdened rates (regular rate and overtime rate) for all labor categories and years. Fully burdened rates shall include direct labor rates, all direct costs, indirect costs (Overhead, General and Administrative, Fringe Benefits, etc.) and profit necessary for the performance of the requirement. Service Contract Labor Standards, formerly the Service Contract Act, applies to this service. Offerors must pay employees at a minimum, but may pay more, the wages and fringe benefits found by the U.S.

Department of Labor to prevail in the locality.

There is no need to populate prices in the CLINs on the solicitation document, only the TEP needs to be filled out with pricing information.

Offeror's price proposal shall be based on the sum of all years of the contract and the option period. The annual amount each year shall be divisible by 12. Appendix D in the PWS can be used to develop the price proposal. Appendix D is provided for informational purposes only, the offeror may use any manpower mix they desire that also provides for successful performance on the contract. The TEP worksheet shall be filled out be determining the full burdened rate multiplying it by the number of hours proposed and then by the number of employees the offeror will use to fulfill the work.

The formula for application of overtime hours and the notional hours used will not be disclosed to offerors. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only; however, ALL proposed fully burdened NTE rates (regular and overtime) are contractually binding. Submit a copy of the completed TEP Pricing Matrix in MS Excel (non PDF format).

5.2.1. Rounding

All fully burdened labor rates provided shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

5.2.2. Cost/Price Data

Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless the offeror considers it essential to document or support its cost/price position. All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Price Volume. Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

5.2.3. Cost or Pricing Data Requirements

In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. Data shall be provided IAW FAR 15.403-5, Instructions for Submission of Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data. If, after receipt of proposals, the PCO determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1, Prohibition on Obtaining Certified Cost or Pricing Data (10 U.S.C. 2306a and 41 U.S.C. 254b) apply, the offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data.

5.2.4. Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs)

CDRLs will not be separately priced. Cost required to produce each CDRL should be included in the offeror's proposed labor hours for CLINs XX01 through XX10 and CLINs XX13 through

XX14.

5.2.5. Estimating Techniques and Methods

Offerors shall use generally accepted estimating techniques to develop their estimates for the proposed rates.

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212‐2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Products and Commercial Services

(NOV 2021)

FAR 52.212-2 is tailored in accordance with FAR 12.302

1. Source Selection Methodology

Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 to make a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Technical evaluations will start with the lowest price offer. When the three lowest prices, technically acceptable offers are identified, technical evaluations of the remaining offers will not be conducted.

Award will then be made to the lowest price technically acceptable offer. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, which conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph 2 below. Since this is a LPTA evaluation, trade-offs are not permitted.

2. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by Volume):

2.1. General

2.1.1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2.2. Volume I, Completed RFP

2.2.1. General: The completed RFP will be evaluated to ensure that all clauses and provisions that require "fill-in" information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the TEP worksheet. Any exceptions to the RFP may cause the proposal to be determined not eligible for award. A signed copy of all amendments shall be included.

2.3. Volume II, Technical Factor

2.3.1. General: Each offeror's written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

2.3.2. Subfactor One: Program Management & Reporting

2.3.2.1. Program Management Requirements

The offeror's program management approach is technically acceptable when the offeror provides an effective approach to all contractor management aspects of the FOM program, and the approach is realistically achievable. The offeror's approach shall address all requirements IAW the following paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of the PWS unless otherwise noted.

a. Management Plan (Paragraph 2.1)

a. Offeror is technically acceptable when their management plan addresses the roles and responsibilities of the management teams

b. Safety Program Plan (Paragraph 13.2, Appendix C)

a. The Safety Program Plan is technically acceptable when all the following are included:

i. Name and phone number of the primary point of contact for safety and health issues for on-site operation.

ii. How mishaps will be reported

iii. Subjects listed in Section II

iv. How routine and recurring surveillance will ensure the safety requirements of the contract is enforced

v. How all contractor personnel will be trained and qualified to perform duties safely

c. Transition Plan (CDRL A002, DID DI-MGMT-80790, paragraph 5.3 and all subparagraphs)

a. The Transition Plan is technically acceptable when a ramp up plan is provided that addresses how the contractor will accomplish ramp up operations. This includes ensuring all employees possess the required training, qualifications, proficiency, security clearances, and employees satisfy all access requirements upon start of the task order following the ramp up period.

2.3.2.2. Multiple Site Supervision

The approach is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a clear strategy which demonstrates a plan to manage multiple locations. IAW PWS Paragraph(s) 1.

2.3.3. Subfactor Two: Performance Requirements

2.3.3.1. Provide Qualified Personnel

The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a labor mix with appropriate qualifications, skill sets, clearances to successfully complete the technical and management requirements of the PWS without a loss of performance continuity and/or efficiency.

2.3.3.2. Security Clearance

The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail of a clear methodology which clearly demonstrates and substantiates how the offeror will provide a workforce that possesses the appropriate security clearance upon the start of the contract Period of Performance IAW PWS Paragraph 5.3.2.1. A sound methodology, experience, or combination of both is required.

2.3.4. Subfactor Three: Quality System Plan (QSP)

This subfactor is technically acceptable when it provides a clear methodology which demonstrates how the offeror shall ensure quality effectiveness and comprehensive management.

The QSP shall identify what is being measured to ensure quality, how often quality will be tracked and provided to the Government, In addition, the QSP shall include who on the Contractor’s side will complete the reviews and assures the appropriate action. Provide how the Government will know that any issues are resolved by the contractor.

2.3.5. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror's technical approach for meeting the Government's requirement. The offeror's proposal 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 subfactor. To be considered awardable, there must be an "acceptable" rating in every subfactor.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

2.4. Volume III, Price Proposal

2.4.1. The criteria used for evaluation of the Price Factor will be Reasonableness, Balance, and Total

Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP will be computed and provided to the Source Selection Authority for award purposes only and does not become part of the contract at award. However, the rates proposed in the TEP Matrix used to calculate the TEP will become contractually binding.

2.4.1.1. Reasonableness: The determination of reasonableness will consist of reviewing all of the proposed CLINs with the exception of the Not Separately Priced DATA/CDRL CLINs XX12 and XX16. The price of these DATA/CDRL CLINs are expected to be priced within CLIN

XX01 through XX10 and in CLINs XX13 though XX14. All other CLINs will be reviewed for reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. For a price to be considered reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market and its affordability. In addition, the number of proposed labor hours and the proposed number of personal will be evaluated for reasonableness.

2.4.1.2. Balance: The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to CLINs and TEP. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more CLIN is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4.1.3. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Matrix: The total TEP will consist of the cumulative value for all

CLINs excluding XX12 and XX16 (CDRLs - NSP). The TEP for CLINs XX01 through XX10 and XX13 through XX14, will be calculated by adding all annual amounts together. The TEP for CLINs XX11 and XX15 will be calculated by applying notional hours. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only; however, all proposed rates are contractually binding as Not-to-Exceed rates. A no bid or an omitted rate may result in an incomplete Price Volume submission. An omitted rate may result in proposal elimination.

2.4.1.4. Labor Rates: Labor Rates will be established for pricing all future contractual modifications.

Fully burdened labor rates include direct labor rates, indirect rates, (Overhead, General and Administrative, Fringe Benefits, etc.) and profit.

2.4.1.5. Unacceptable Technical Subfactors: If at any time during the evaluation the Government finds a technical subfactor to be unacceptable, the evaluation of pricing will reflect, "Not Determined" for Reasonableness and Balance due to the offeror's price not reflecting an acceptable technical approach. The Government may also decline to consider the offeror's TEP for purposes of competitive range or award if the offeror has any unacceptable rating.