2.05.3.6 Attachment (22) 52.212-2 Addendum Evaluation - Amend 3.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award RFO provision 52.212-2 Addendum, Evaluation--Commercial Products and Commercial Services

The Government intends to award a single (with possibility of a multiple award), indefinite-delivery requirements (IDR) type contract with firm-fixed-price (FFP) provisions resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefits in response to the requirement. A tradeoff analysis may be used when it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other that the lowest total evaluated cost Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror.

The trade-off evaluation of proposals will consider the offeror's Non-Price Factors (Factors I, II, and III) to be more important than the Price Factor (Factor IV). The non-price factors consists of Factor I: Technical to include each subfactor, Factor II: Past Performance, and Factor III: Small Business Participation. Factors I and II are more important than Factor III. Factor I and II are of equal importance. The degree of importance of Factor IV will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the non-cost factors on which selection is to be based, or when the evaluated cost delta between offerors is so significant as to diminish the value of the superiority of the non-cost factors.

The Government intends to award a contract without exchanges. The establishment of a competitive range is not anticipated. Accordingly, each offeror should submit its most favorable terms from a price and non-price standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and conduct exchanges if later determined by the contracting officer to be necessary.

The following terms and definitions will be used for proposal evaluations:

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government’s requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

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.

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during performance.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Strength is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Evaluation Process

Initial Screening of Proposals

All proposals must be received by the PCO or designee not later than the hour and date given in the RFP. Upon receipt of proposals the PCO or designee shall conduct an initial screening to ascertain that each offeror has submitted all of the required information, including electronic media, in the quantities and format specified in the RFP. Offerors will be removed from further consideration if they do not provide all documents. The PCO will retain the original of the offerors proposals and associated data. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Chairperson will control all copies of the offerors' proposals and other associated data.

Offerors are advised that failure to provide all required documents, volumes, and formats specified in Section L of the RFP instructions will result in the proposal being determined non-compliant and eliminated from further consideration and award eligibility.

Evaluation of Proposals

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors to determine the best value proposal. The evaluation factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decision. The factors and associated elements have been chosen to support meaningful discrimination between proposals.

Volume I: Factor I – Technical

a. Subfactor 1 – Performance Narrative – Offerors detailed narrative must demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of each task, subtask, deliverable, and associated performance standards detailed in the PWS. The narrative must clearly articulate how the offeror will accomplish each PWS requirement, including specific methodologies, technologies, and processes. Proposals that propose approaches inconsistent with, or failing to fully address, the PWS will be considered significantly deficient and may be excluded from further consideration.

b. Subfactor 2 – Management Plan – The Offeror’s Management Plan demonstrates a solid approach to managing the contract. The proposed organizational structure is clear, with well-defined roles and responsibilities.

The plan should address:

1. Key Positions and recruit of required professionals.

2. Retention plans

3. Oversight into managing schedules.

4. Approach to managing the contract and task planning, administrative support services, cost control and reporting, program reviews and technical status reporting, and quality assurance and data management support.

5. The risk management plan identifies potential risks, such as staffing shortages and technical challenges, and proposes mitigation strategies including proactive recruitment and contingency planning. The plan includes a quality control process with defined metrics and procedures for monitoring performance.

The Combined Technical/Risk Rating, includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical risk/evaluations will utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the Technical Ratings Table and the risk descriptions in the Risk Descriptions Table below. The overall assigned technical factor rating will be from the Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Table.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Volume I: Factor II – Past Performance

Each offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine relevancy and confidence assessment. The government will evaluate the past performance references for recency, relevance, and quality of performance.

The Government reserves its right to collect and use information from sources other than those identified in the proposal to evaluate past performance. This may include, but is not limited to, Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases, and/or personal knowledge. The Government may contact past or current customers to collect additional information for use in evaluating past performance. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact and to contact other references than those provided in the proposal. The Government reserves the right to not perform a past performance evaluation on any offeror that is assigned a “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” adjectival rating under Factor 2 - Technical.

Recency: Recent performance within the past five years from the solicitation closing date (Oct 19, 2026). To be considered, references must demonstrate at least one year of completed performance within this timeframe. We will only evaluate work that has already been completed – future or past-dated work will not be considered.

Relevancy: Relevant performance includes efforts that are similar in scope and magnitude as identified in the PWS. Past performance references that reflect projects with a similar scope and magnitude to efforts described in the solicitation will have greater importance in the evaluation of this factor. We’ll assess how well your past projects align with the work described in this solicitation. Scope is defined as the Offeror’s experience in specific areas outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Magnitude is defined as the similarity in the dollar value between your completed projects and the estimated value of this contract. The Government will evaluate all past performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the assignment of a performance confidence assessment rating.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

Quality: The Government will evaluate the overall quality of your past performance. This includes looking at trends and the usefulness of the information provided. We may use a variety of sources to verify this information, including:

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) SAM.gov Direct contact with your past customers (including private sector, government personnel like Contracting Officers, DCMA, and CORs) Other available databases and sources.

We reserve the right to gather information from any source to inform our evaluation.

A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, an overall performance confidence assessment rating with be assigned based on the Offeror’s overall record or recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. With respect to relevancy, more 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. The Government will assign an overall

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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 so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has low expectations 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.

While “Neutral Confidence” ratings will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, the Government may determine that a:

Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best-value tradeoff.

Volume I: Factor III – Small Business Participation

The Small Business Participation factor will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Each Offeror's Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) must meet the minimum compliance requirements of the solicitation. No qualitative trade-offs, strengths, or weaknesses will be assigned.

Rating Definition

Acceptable (Pass) The proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable (Fail) The proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

1. A rating of acceptable will be assigned to proposals that meet all of the following requirements:

2. The Offeror submitted a fully completed SBPCD template (Attachment (24) SBPCD Template Pass or Fail), including all required tables, size certifications, and signed representative signatures.

3. The Offeror identified specific, viable small business concerns with a scope of work relevant to the Solicitations, assigned appropriate NAICS codes, and provided substantiated, binding commitments (e.g., signed Letters of Commitment) for each small business listed.

4. The Offeror proposed quantitative small business participation (measured as a percentage of Total Contract Value) that meets or exceeds the Government's established MQRs.

5. The Offeror provided a complete past performance statement regarding compliance with FAR 52.219-8 over the last six (6) years. Any negative performance history was adequately explained with verified corrective actions, or the Offeror certified they have no prior compliance history.

6. The Offeror committed to submitting quarterly progress reports in contractor format via CDRL EA01.

Volume II: Factor IV - Price Evaluation Criteria

Price Proposals for each schedule will be evaluated separately and in accordance with RFO 15.404-1(b), Price Analysis.

Price analysis will be used to determine the total evaluated price, for each proposed schedule.

Offerors proposing on Schedule I (Outbound) shall propose pricing for CLINs: 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001. The proposed prices for each CLIN shall correlate with prices proposed in Attachment (1), Pricing Worksheet under Schedule

(I).

Offerors proposing on Schedule II (Inbound) shall propose pricing for CLINs: 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002. The proposed prices for each CLIN shall correlate with prices proposed in Attachment (1), Pricing Worksheet under Schedule

(II).

Offerors proposing on Schedule III (Intra-City) shall propose pricing for CLINs 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003, and 4003. The proposed prices for each CLIN shall correlate with prices proposed in Attachment (1), Pricing Worksheet under Schedule

(III).

The Government will evaluate proposals by adding the total price for all options to include the Option to Extend Services (which shall be calculated as half the value of option year four (4)), to the total price for the base period of performance of each schedule. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

In evaluating the price portion of the proposal, the government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed price/costs for completeness and reasonableness and may conduct a price realism analysis in determining whether an offeror has sufficient resources to perform. An unduly low price may be considered a performance risk when it’s determined that the low price is not based on a more efficient method of performing the work.

Volume II: Factor V - Standard Form 1449 To be considered a complete submission to an SF1449 solicitation, Offerors must include:

Completed SF1449 Form and attachments: All applicable blocks must be filled out accurately and completely except for CLIN Pricing.

Technical Proposal: Addressing all requirements outlined in the solicitation.

CLIN (Contract Line-Item Number) Pricing: A clear and detailed breakdown of pricing for each CLIN specified in the solicitation per unit of issue for the base year and options.

Base Year Total: The total estimated value for the base year.

Total Estimated Value: The total estimated value of the contract, including the base year and all option years.

Business/Company Information.

Representations and Certifications: All required certifications completed.

Any Required Attachments/Appendices: Specifically listed in the solicitation (resumes, past performance references, data, etc.).

RFO Full Text Clauses: A complete copy of all Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) clauses cited in the solicitation. These must be included as attachments.

Signature: A signed offer by an authorized representative of your company.

Volume III LARGE BUSINESS ONLY: - Subcontracting Plan (Not an Evaluation Factor) (Schedules I & II only)

For Other than Small Business (Large Business) Offerors, the Government will review the formal Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted under Section L.3 (containing Schedules I and II) to ensure compliance with RFO 19.109 and RFO 52.219-9. The plan is reviewed strictly as a matter of contractor responsibility and is not given a qualitative or pass/fail rating.

In accordance with RFO 19.109, a contract cannot be awarded to a Large Business unless the Contracting Officer determines their RFO 52.219-9 Subcontracting Plan is acceptable.

The Government will verify that the subcontracting percentages and categories outlines in Schedule I of the formal Subcontracting Plan match or exceed the commitments documented in the SBPCD (under Factor III). Significant downward variances in the formal Subcontracting Plan relative to the SBPCD without detailed written justification may result in the Subcontracting Plan being deemed unacceptable.