Exhibit 4-Addendum to 52.212-2--Evaluation Criteria-Amendment 0001.docx
DOCX document 26 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HT940626QE063
- Issued by
-
Defense Health Agency
About this file
This is an addendum to the evaluation criteria for a Request for Quotation (RFQ) that updates the rating standards for technical capability assessment. The amendment introduces a three-tier rating system for Factor 1 - Technical Capability, consisting of "Exceeds," "Acceptable," and "Unacceptable" ratings. An "Exceeds" rating is awarded when an offeror demonstrates the ability to provide services that surpass the stated specifications or offer advantages to the Government. An "Acceptable" rating indicates the offeror can meet the specifications and services as outlined in the RFQ. An "Unacceptable" rating is given when the offeror fails to demonstrate capability to meet stated specifications, does not provide required deliverables, or fails to demonstrate understanding of RFQ requirements. Offerors must clearly address each task in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), with any unaddressed tasks assumed to represent non-compliance.
The evaluation uses a best value tradeoff approach where non-price factors are weighted more heavily than price, though price becomes increasingly important as non-price evaluations approach parity. Technical capability submissions are limited to three pages maximum, and any quotation receiving an "Unacceptable" rating on the non-price factor will result in overall rejection. Price proposals must be fair and reasonable per FAR 12.201-1, with the Government reserving the right to award to other than the lowest-priced offeror based on overall best value. The RFQ applies to the Naval Medical Center - Portsmouth (NMCP) Pathway to Excellence Program Designation procurement, issued by the Defense Health Agency Contracting Activity-Healthcare Division-Southeast, with responses due by July 27, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. ET.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Solicitation Amendment-HT940626QE0630001.pdf | ||
| Solicitation - HT940626QE063.pdf | ||
| Exhibit 3-Addendum to 52.212-1-Instructions to Offerors.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit 4-Addendum to 52.212-2 -- Evaluation Criteria.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit 1-Addendum to Special Contract Requirements.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit 2-PWS-PTE.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 1-Brand Name Determination.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ATTACHMENT 2: ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2, AMENDMENT 0001
EXHIBIT 4
ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2
AMENDMENT 0001:
· This amendment updates the description for Factor 1 – Technical Capability, to include the rating of “Exceeds.”
ADDENDUM-1 TO: 52.212-2 - EVALUATION CRITERIA:
(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this Request for Quotation (RFQ) to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the RFQ will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:
Factor 1 – Technical Capability Factor 2 – Price
(b) Basis for Award: Award of this will be made on a competitive best value basis, using “best value tradeoff” among price and non-price factors. A best value tradeoff process will be used; thus, the Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced offeror, or other than the offeror with the highest rated non-price offer. The non-price evaluation factors numbered in descending order of importance, are as follows:
(1) Technical Capability,
(2) Price
Government evaluators will not assume that the offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the offer.
After the above non-price factor and price are evaluated, an overall rating will be assigned collectively to the factor. If the above non-price evaluation factor receives an individual rating of “Unacceptable”, the collective overall rating will also be “Unacceptable”. In addition, price offers that are not found fair and/or reasonable will be rated "Unacceptable". Only offers receiving an overall rating of “Acceptable” will be considered for award.
The non-price factors are more important than price. As the non-price factors begin to reach equality in the evaluation, price becomes a more important factor in the tradeoff analysis.
(c) Evaluation Criteria: Offers for this requirement will be evaluated using the following criteria:
Factor 1 - Technical Capability:
An evaluation for technical acceptability will be made to ensure satisfactory responsiveness to the requirements set forth in this RFQ. The non-price factor will be rated “Exceeds”, “Acceptable”, or “Unacceptable” using the following rating standards:
| Rating |
| Description |
| Exceeds |
| A quotation is rated as exceeds if it demonstrates that the Offeror can provide the required designation that exceeds the specifications and services as stated in the RFQ or provides advantage(s) to the Government. |
| Acceptable |
| A quotation is acceptable if it demonstrates that the Offeror can provide a configuration with the specifications and services as stated in the RFQ. |
| Unacceptable |
| A quotation will be deemed unacceptable if the Offeror fails to demonstrate the ability to meet the stated specifications and services, or fails to provide the requirements listed above, or offers a technical approach that either does not meet and/or demonstrate an understanding of the requirements outlined in the RFQ. If any of the following non-cost/price evaluation factors receives an individual rating of “Unacceptable”, the entire quotation will be deemed “Unacceptable.” |
The degree to which the Offeror’s technical quotation demonstrates that the offeror can provide the requested designation certification described in the RFQ and can meet the delivery schedule. The vendor should clearly list out if they meet or do not meet requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Lack of a response to a task listed in the PWS will be assumed to have not met that requirement. The Offeror shall provide a written quotation that clearly reflects the technical capability of performing the services, and their understanding of the requirements set forth in the PWS. Quotations shall be clear, coherent, and prepared in sufficient detail for effective evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria. The Government will evaluate only one (1) quotation from the prime Offeror and maximum page limit for Technical Capability is three (3) pages. The Government will not accept alternative quotations.
Factor 2 – Price:
The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the calculations submitted are complete and correct. The Offeror’s proposed price shall be evaluated separately from the non-price evaluation factor. Price evaluation is to determine whether the Offeror’s proposed price is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 12.201-1. Price analysis will be used to determine the total evaluated price to support the selection of the best value offered to the Government.
(d) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).
(End of provision)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .