52.212-2_2.28.25.docx

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items

1.0 GENERAL EVALUATION INFORMATION

The Government intends to make a single contract award resulting from this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to make no awards. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value (see FAR 2.101) in accordance with the evaluation criteria herein.

To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1 and its proposal must meet all the requirements of the solicitation, including Limitations on Subcontracting (if applicable) and conform to all required terms and conditions. Offerors must propose to provide all contract line items to be eligible for award.

Alternate proposals are not allowed. Proposals with contingent terms and conditions may be deemed non-responsive and could result in the rejection of an Offeror’s proposal.

1.1 Competitive, Best-Value Source Selection

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with FAR Parts 12 and 15.3. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated, comparative assessment of the submitted offers, utilizing the factors described below taking into account that two of the five factors (Key Personnel and Small Business Participation) will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to best meet the needs of the Government after consideration of all factors. “Best value” is defined here as the selection process that results in the most advantageous acquisition decision for the Government and is performed though an integrated assessment and trade-off analysis among the price, technical/risk, and past performance factors.

Application of this best value analysis, tradeoff methodology may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced Offeror where such a decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority reasonably determines that the overall benefit associated with the traded-off non-price factors outweighs the price difference.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal exhibits a clear understanding of the work requirements (as described in the evaluation factors) and whether the proposal demonstrates an ability to meet or exceed those requirements.

1.2 Discussions

The Government intends to award the contract without discussions with Offerors; however, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. Therefore, Offerors should not anticipate a future opportunity for revisions and should ensure their initial proposals contain their best terms.

2.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Proposals must be prepared and submitted in accordance with FAR Provision 52.212-1 and its Addendum. The Government will review proposals for completeness and conformity with FAR Provision 52.212-1 and its Addendum before evaluating them in accordance with this section. The Government reserves the right to reject incomplete or non-conforming proposals at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

The Source Selection Authority will select the Offeror whose proposal is considered the best value to the Government based solely on the evaluation of the following factors and subfactors.

2.1 Factors

Factor 1 (F1): Small Business Participation Plan (non-price) (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Factor 2 (F2): Key Personnel Qualifications (non-price) (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Factor 3 (F3): Technical/Risk (non-price) Subfactor 1: Provider Networks Subfactor 2: Scheduling Capability Subfactor 3: NIST/CMMC Compliance Subfactor 4: Transition-In Plan Subfactor 5: Scenarios Factor 4 (F4) Past Performance (non-price) Factor 5 (F5): Price

2.2 Factor and Subfactor Weighting

F1 and F2 will not be associated with the tradeoff process as only those non-price factors not rated on an “acceptable vs. unacceptable” basis can be used in the tradeoff with price. However, an Offeror must receive an Acceptable rating for these factors in order to be eligible for award.

For purposes of the tradeoff analysis, F3, Technical/Risk, is the most important factor (out of F3, F4 and F5). The F3 subfactors 1 through 5 are weighted equally. F4, Past Performance, is more important than F5, Price. The non-price evaluation factors (F3 and F4), when combined, are more important than F5, Price.

Although price is a substantial factor in the source selection, this competition may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced Offeror. However, the significance of Price as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality in overall merit of competing proposals in meeting solicitation requirements.

2.3 Proposal Evaluation

The Government intends to conduct a concurrent evaluation of all factors followed by the selection process (trade-off analysis). The evaluation includes the Acceptability of Factors F1, and F2, a Technical/Risk Rating for F3, a Confidence Assessment for F4, and a Determination of Fair and Reasonable Pricing for F5 (taking into consideration any offered Group Event volume discounts).

2.4 Non-Price Evaluation Criteria

Factor 1 (F1): Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) (non-price) will be evaluated using the descriptions and acceptable or unacceptable ratings in Table 1. Only proposals receiving an acceptable rating for this Factor will be considered for award.

The Government will consider how the Offeror’s proposed SBPCD compares with the small business goals listed below. The Government will consider the extent to which the Offeror identifies intended small business partners in its commitment document and the extent to which the document explains the good faith efforts the Offeror will make to meet the specified goals by using small business, SDVOSB, HUBZone small business, SDB, and WOSB subcontractors to the maximum extent practicable.

The Subcontracting goals are as follows:

Total (combined) Small Business Participation: 30%

· Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) 7%

· Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Concerns 5%

· Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB): 3%

· Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 2%

· Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) 1%

Table 1: Small Business Participation Commitment Document Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Factor 2 (F2): Key Personnel Qualifications (non-price) will be evaluated using the descriptions and acceptable or unacceptable ratings in Table 2. Only proposals receiving an Acceptable rating for this Factor will be considered for award.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel to ensure they possess the minimum necessary qualifications as described in the PWS paragraphs 1.12.10 and 5.9. The Government will evaluate the key personnel qualifications on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. If any key person proposed by an Offeror does not possess the requisite minimum qualifications, then the Government will assign an Unacceptable rating—which will result in an Unacceptable rating for the entire Factor. Key personnel are as follows: Program Manager (PM), Alternate Program Manager (APM), Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Chief Information Officer (CIO), Chief Dental Officer (CDO), Group Event Coordinator (GEC), and Alternate Group Event Coordinator.

Table 2. Key Personnel Qualifications Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Factor 3 (F3): Technical Approach For subfactors 1-5 under F3, the Government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement and the extent to which the Offeror clearly understands the Government’s requirements and will assign one of the Technical ratings described in Table 3 and one of the risk ratings described in Table 4.

For purposes of the evaluation of the Subfactors, a “significant strength” is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal with appreciable merit or that will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance. A “strength” is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. The Government may assign multiple strengths to a subfactor; however, if the Government determines an aspect of the proposal to be a strength, that strength will be credited to only one subfactor. The Government will have the sole discretion in determining which subfactor the strength best fits. A “deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. A “weakness” means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Table 3. Technical Rating

Technical Risk Rating under F3: The Government will also utilize subfactors 1-5 of F3 for evaluating proposal risk. Risk as it pertains to source selection is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror's proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The risk evaluation will include, but not be limited to, an evaluation of the Offeror’s proposed approach, method, or process for completing tasks and the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in performing tasks (including experience in performing a proposed approach, method, or process).

Table 4. Risk Rating

In conducting the F3 evaluation, the Government will first determine technical and risk ratings for the 5 subfactors individually. Then, based on the subfactor ratings, the Government will assign overall Technical and Risk ratings for the Factor. If any of the subfactors receives an individual rating of “Unacceptable,” the overall Technical rating will also be “Unacceptable.” Only proposals receiving an overall Technical rating of “Acceptable” or higher will be considered for award.

Subfactor 1: Provider Networks. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Provider Network Implementation Plan and the effectiveness of the Offeror’s approach for establishing, implementing, and maintaining robust medical and dental provider networks capable of delivering the full range of required readiness services via the three identified modalities to Service Members (SMs) described in the RHRP-4 PWS paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, and 5.7.

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Provider Network Sizing Model (PWS paragraph 5.1.1) including the formulas and methods used to derive network sizing targets by provider practice area to meet the contract’s in-clinic requirement. The Government also will evaluate the adequacy of any evidence the Offeror provides demonstrating that it owns, and intends to use, an existing network and/or that it is or will be authorized to use as part of its network any existing network not owned by the Offeror and will evaluate any letters of commitment provided by the Offeror to assess the readiness/willingness of the owner(s) to participate in the Offeror’s network. The Government will evaluate how effectively the Offeror’s sizing model (and network development approach):

i. Incorporates the SM population (Exhibit F1);

ii. Calculates the number of providers needed and minimum provider ratios;

iii. Determines types of providers required;

iv. Meets the travel distance and access standards described in PWS paragraph 5.1.2. (The Government will also evaluate the efficacy of the mapping tools/programs the Offeror proposes to use for determining the driving distance between a SM’s or civilian employee’s home of record, place of duty, or place of civilian employment and the provider’s location); and

v. Monitors and addresses network shortages.

b. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed timeline and the effectiveness of its approach for establishing agreements with providers, and obtaining appointments with such providers, in areas typically known for having limited network coverage.

c. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed network size for each of the identified markets to determine the effectiveness of the Offeror’s sizing model. The Government will evaluate whether a network is accurately sized based on the Service Member population.

i. Guam

ii. State of Alaska

iii. San Antonio, TX

iv. National Capital Region, i.e. the metropolitan area that includes Washington, D.C. and the surrounding Maryland and Virginia counties Subfactor 2: Scheduling Capability. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposed approach for creating, operating, and maintaining a secure readiness scheduling capability that allows SMs, SCs, and SC designees to access required medical readiness services using mobile, web, and telephonic means for each of the three modalities: in-clinic, virtual, and group events. (PWS paragraphs 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.7)

a. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposed approach for creating, operating, and maintaining both electronic and telephonic scheduling capabilities for all modalities. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s approach for ensuring its scheduling capabilities provide all functionality described in the PWS paragraphs 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.7, and 5.10 via web and mobile platforms, including customizable user roles with ability to schedule, edit, view, modify, and cancel readiness appointments.

b. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach for the Status Dashboard Common Operating Picture to display financial reporting, scheduling, and forecasting services (PWS paragraph 5.10). The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s approach for ensuring its Status Dashboard will provide all functionality as described in PWS paragraph 5.10 and its subparagraphs.

Subfactor 3: NIST/CMMC Compliance (PWS paragraphs 5.2.7.5.1, 6.4, 6.5)

a. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposed approach for complying with the security requirements prescribed in the DFARS clause 252.204-7012.

b. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposed approach for implementing each of the 110 security requirements of NIST SP 800-171 for the processing, storage, and transmission of any DoD controlled unclassified information.

c. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposed approach for tracking and assessing the compliance of its subcontractors with the NIST SP 800-171 requirements in accordance with DFARS clause 252.204-7020 and 252.204-7021.

d. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s reported summary level score for its current basic assessment to assess the Offeror’s ability to implement the NIST SP 800-171 requirements by contract award.

e. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposed Plan of Action for identifying and accomplishing necessary security tasks, if the Offeror’s summary-level score is below 110.

f. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposed approach for achieving a CMMC Level-2 Certification through a CMMC third party assessor organization (C3PAO) following the four-phase DOD implementation plan.

Subfactor 4: Transition-In Plan. The Government will evaluate the thoroughness and effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposed Transition-In Plan and schedule, addressing all activities required from contract award through commencement of services, including the effectiveness of the Offeror’s plan to meet the milestones and associated requirements (described in the Performance Based Payment Schedule, Attachment A) and to ensure a smooth ramp up of all required capabilities necessary to deliver all services and support described in the PWS paragraph 1.6.1 by the full performance start date (up to 9 months after award).

Subfactor 5: Scenarios

a. Scenario 1: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach for providing services at the identified 124 Group Events, including the Offeror’s process/approach for (1) coordinating services and logistics across all events, (2) determining necessary staffing coverage at the events (labor categories, labor mix, hours, etc.), (3) traveling staff to the events, (4) moving/shipping necessary equipment and supplies to the events, and (5) establishing/maintaining internet connectivity at the events. (PWS paragraphs 1.8, 1.9, 4.7, 5.1, 5.2.6, and 5.9.5) In addition, the Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposed approach for processing/preparing dental exams, dental treatments, and immunizations (PWS paragraphs 5.7.15, 5.7.16). Finally, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach/process for updating Service Member medical records either during or upon completion of the Group Events (PWS paragraphs 5.2.7.5.11, 5.7.2, 5.7.3, 5.7.8, and 5.10).

c. Scenario 2: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach for handling a Service Member request (addressing both a telephonic request and a request through the electronic scheduling capability) to schedule a periodic health assessment (PHA) at an in-clinic setting. The Government also will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed touch and feel for the user experience and the processes involved to meet the requirement, beginning with the PHA request and ending with the appropriate system of record update. (PWS paragraphs 5.2, 5.2.5, 5.2.7, 5.3, 5.5, 5.7, and 5.7.9) Factor 4 (F4): The past performance evaluation assesses the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of recent and relevant work performance. The Government’s past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of each Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Government will assign one overall performance confidence assessment rating for each proposal.

For the purposes of evaluation past performance:

a. The Government will review and assess no more than five (5) recent and relevant past performance references provided by the Offeror, as described in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. When assessing the Offeror’s performance confidence, the Government will use the Offeror’s past performance proposal, past performance questionnaires, and additional information the Government obtains from the Offeror’s customers listed in the proposal. The Government may or may not, at its sole discretion, use relevant past performance information from other customers known to the Government, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and other sources of useful and relevant information including the Government’s own internal records.

b. The evaluation will consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies and major subcontractors (as that term is defined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) when such information is recent and relevant to this acquisition. Past performance information from the prime Offeror’s major subcontractors, teaming or joint venture partners will be treated the same as any prime Offeror’s past performance information.

c. If the Offeror has no record of recent or relevant past performance, the Offeror’s past performance will be rated as “Neutral Confidence,” having no favorable or unfavorable impact on the evaluation.

d. If the Government receives adverse past performance information, then it may take steps to gather further information about the circumstances surrounding the situation from the provider of the information. The Government will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Offeror will be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond on a previous occasion. The Offeror’s response, or non-response, will be taken into consideration.

e. Contract references meeting the recency requirement will each be assigned a relevancy rating and will be assessed to determine how well (performance quality) the contractor performed those efforts. An overall performance confidence assessment rating will then be assigned for this factor.

f. Recent: To be considered recent, the performance or contract completion date on the past performance reference shall be within five (5) years of this RFP’s release date. If a reference contract is recent (i.e., the contract period of performance concluded within 5 years of this RFP’s issuance date), then the Government will consider the entire period of performance of that contract. Past Performance references that do not meet the definition of “Recent” will be considered “not recent” and will not be evaluated.

g. Relevancy: In order to assess the relevancy of the recent contract references provided by the Offeror, the Government will evaluate the scope and the magnitude of effort and complexities of the work performed under the contract reference as it relates to the requirements for this solicitation. The Government’s assessment of a reference’s relevance will be based on those functions the Offeror or major subcontractor (associated with the particular contract reference provided by the Offeror) would actually be performing under the contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. More recent and relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

h. As noted above, the relevancy of each past performance reference will be evaluated by considering the scope, magnitude, and complexities of the work performed under the reference contract in comparison with the requirements of this solicitation, as described in Table 5 below. Table 5 provides clarity on how the Government defines the RHRP-4 contract scope, magnitude, and complexity for comparison and is not intended to limit the discretion of the Government in determining relevancy ratings.

Table 5: Relevancy Evaluation Considerations Scope (PWS para 1.3, 1.4) Provides all types of medical and dental readiness services

Magnitude (PWS para 1.2, 1.3)

1. Total contract cost >$125M per year

2. Services in 50 States and the District of Columbia, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, the territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands

Complexity (PWS para 1.9, 5.1, 5.2.6, 5.2.7, 5.3, 5.5, 5.7.8) The following tasks are to be performed under RHRP-4 requirements:

1. Shipping/Storage Distribution Networks (Logistics)

2. Support in-person, large-scale group readiness events

3. Establish and maintain provider networks

4. Provide Virtual Health Services

5. Provide Telephonic and Electronic Scheduling

The evaluation team will use the definitions below in assessing relevancy and in assigning a performance confidence rating to each Offeror.

Table 6: Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Performance Quality Assessment: Once it has assigned a relevancy rating to a contract reference, the Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information to determine the quality of performance for the contract reference. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned for each reference; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating will be based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

In assessing quality of performance, the Government will consider the Offeror’s past performance in compliance with clause FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns; clause FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Performance Confidence Assessment: The Government will assess a performance confidence assessment rating relative to the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of this solicitation through an integrated assessment of the past performance information, as described above. The following adjectival ratings in Table 7 will be used in assigning a Performance Confidence Rating:

Table 7: Past Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Factor 5 (F5):

For purposes of determining best value, the Government will use the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each Offeror. The TEP will be the sum of all priced CLINs, including option CLINs, but excluding the value of the transition-in CLIN and the value of the cost CLINs (Travel/Shipping) for which the Government has provided estimated cost numbers. The evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

“Services” CLINs (base period and options): The Offeror’s proposed fully loaded FFP value for each Procedure under the Services CLIN will be multiplied by the Government-provided quantities to compute an extended price for each Procedure in each period of performance as depicted in the Pricing Sheet Attachment E. All extended prices will be summed to derive a total for each period of performance. The total for each period of performance will be summed to derive the evaluated price for the FFP fully loaded Services value.

The government will evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal for reasonableness and completeness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). The Government will also review the offered CLIN prices for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). The Government will not review the individual Procedure prices under the Services CLIN for balance. The Government will not conduct any price realism analysis on the TEP or on individual CLIN prices.

A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Those techniques include, but are not limited to, comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, comparison to commercial market prices for the same or similar services, and/or comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Cost Estimate. To be awardable the Offeror’s TEP must be fair and reasonable.

The Government’s evaluation will also include an analysis of any Offeror-proposed volume-based discounts for services provided at Group Events (at the specified tier levels, based on the number of Service Members receiving services), to assess the potential cost savings to the government.

While the government will not assign a formal rating to an Offeror’s proposed volume discounts and will not consider any such discounts when calculating the Offeror’s TEP, the Government will consider such discounts advantageous if they:

1. Offer measurable cost savings compared to the Offeror’s proposed base pricing structure, and

2. Align with the government’s projected purchasing needs and quantities.

Proposals that include Group Event volume-based discount structures demonstrating clear cost advantages may be given favorable consideration, but the absence of volume discounts will not render a proposal noncompliant or unacceptable.

The Government will incorporate any proposed volume discounts into the awarded contract.

The Government recognizes that not all contractors are able or willing to offer tiered pricing and that the absence of such discounts does not necessarily reflect negatively on the contractor’s pricing strategy. However, proposals offering discounts that align with Government needs may provide additional value and inform the government’s best value award decision.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION

Prior to the award of a contract in response to this solicitation, the Government will make an affirmative determination of the qualifying Offeror’s responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.103. The System for Award Management (SAM) Exclusions will be reviewed. Pursuant to FAR 9.405, contractors found to be debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment are excluded from receiving contracts and agencies shall not solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with these contractors. Furthermore, these contractors are also excluded from conducting business with the Government as agents or representatives of other contractors. Any Offeror determined “non-responsible” will be ineligible for award.

4.0 SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

Prior to the award of a contract in response to this solicitation, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) to ensure compliance with FAR 19.704; FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns; FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan; DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts); and DFARS 215.304.

Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan.

The subcontracting plan, upon approval by the contracting officer, will be incorporated into the award.

5.0 BASIS FOR AWARD (TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS)

The basis for the award of a contract as a result of this Request for Proposal (RFP) will be a detailed, integrated evaluation by the Government on how well the proposals satisfy the evaluation criteria contained in Addendum 52.212-2. Accordingly, the Government may award any resulting contract to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the offeror with the highest technical/risk rating.

The Government will select for award the most advantageous proposal representing the best value to the Government. Award will be made to the Offeror providing an offer that has met all requirements of the solicitation and is deemed most advantageous to the Government, whose Small Business Participation Plan (F1), and Key Personnel Qualifications (F2) have been determined to be “Acceptable,” and trading off Technical/Risk (F3), Past Performance (F4) and Price (F5). Technical/Risk (F3) is more important than Past Performance (F4) and Past Performance (F4) is more important than Price (F5). The non-price evaluation factors (F3 and F4), when combined, are more important than F5, Price.

The Source Selection Authority has the right to determine whether two or more technical proposals are substantially equal or whether any differences in technical approaches are significant for the purposes of evaluating the overall merit of proposals.

Between competing proposals, the Government is not willing to pay significantly more for a minor technical or past performance advantage, nor is the Government willing to forego a significant technical or past performance advantage in exchange for a small price differential.

(End of the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2)