Refrigerant Detectors - Addendum 52.212-1 & 52.212-2.pdf

ADDENDUM

52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Products and Commercial Services. (Feb 2026)

1. Submission of offers.

1.1. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation when the offeror responsible for conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered IAW FAR 52.212-2 and the evaluation factors outlined in this solicitation addendum.

1.2. By submission of offer, the offeror consents to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors.

1.2.1. Failure to meet or conform to any requirement of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) or this solicitation may result in an offer being determined to be non-responsive and excluded from evaluation.

1.2.2. Vendors must have an active System for Award Management (SAM) registration at the time of offer submission to be considered responsive. An inactive or lack of registration will excluded the contract from evaluation.

1.3. Submit signed and dated offers to the office specified in this solicitation at or before the exact time specified in this solicitation.

1.4. A site visit will be held on Friday, 23 October 2026 at 9:00 AM local time. Please meet at the Little Rock AFB Visitors Control Center no later than 8:45 AM to gain base access.

1.5. Questions are due via email to the POCs listed in SAM.gov Monday, 26 October 2026 at 1000 CST.

1.6. The quote shall consist of three (3) separate parts: Part I - Price, Part II – Technical, and Part III –

Past Performance.

2. Price.

2.1. Complete blocks 12, 17a, and 30a, b and c of the Standard Form (SF) 1449. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation, with attachments. The solicitation constitutes the model contract.

2.2. Offers must be submitted pricing on the solicitation SF 1449 or their own internal document, but the structure must match the CLIN structure on the SF 1449, including the base CLINS 0001 and 0002, followed by option CLINS 0003 to 0006 which will be determined if exercised at award. If the offer is not submitted on the SF 1449, include a statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation. All items shall be addressed on the document.

2.3. Period for acceptance of offers: The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 60 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers, unless another time period is specified in an addendum to the solicitation.

2.3.1. Vendors may, at their discretion, provide additional time.

2.3.2. Offers must clearly show the expiration date of the offer, whether it is the 60 day minimum, or as outlined in 2.2.1 above.

2.4. Quoters shall round to the nearest cent (for example 1.02 not $1.0231). Quoters rejecting the terms and conditions may be excluded from consideration. Total price will be evaluated for price reasonableness

3. Technical

3.1. At a minimum, the offers must show:

3.1.1. Product Compliance: Technical data and manufacturer information for proposed R-410A refrigerant leak detectors and gang boxes meeting specification in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

3.1.2. Execution Plan: Brief narrative outlining the proposed raceway/conduit routing methodology (e.g., MC cable) designed to minimize sheetrock and drywall impact. The offeror shall also describe its proposed methodology for completing drywall repair, painting, and associated finish work following installation. The offeror shall demonstrate its ability to return each affected dorm room to an occupiable condition within three (3) calendar days of commencement of drywall repair.

3.2. Offerors quotes shall clearly identify products that are submitted as “equal items”. Product information (i.e. literature, manufactures websites, etc..., shall be submitted for all equivalent items.

4. Past Performance

4.1. Limited to 8 (eight) pages. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations are not included in the page limitation. Any pages over 8 (eight) that are submitted will not be used in the evaluation.

4.2. Past Performance. Offerors shall provide adequate past performance information on completed or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government and private) considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed work as identified within the PWS. Offerors must provide past performance information to establish Recency and Relevancy on all Federal contracts before State, local government or private contracts. The Government's evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of each contract are deemed relevant to complexity and magnitude as related to the requirements of this solicitation and in accordance with FAR 52.212-2. Failure to provide required relevancy description may impact the confidence rating, (i.e. aspects of previous projects should match work elements identified in the Solicitation/PWS).

4.3. Provide a summary of the previous contracts described above, not to exceed 2 pages of past performance information per reference. The summary should explain what aspects of each contract are deemed recent and relevant as related to the requirements of this solicitation. Failure to provide required relevancy description may impact the confidence rating, (i.e. aspects of previous projects should match work elements identified in the solicitation/PWS). The maximum number of past performance references shall not exceed 4. The summary should not exceed 2 pages per reference (maximum total of 8 pages) and include:

4.3.1. Name of project (contract number, if applicable)

4.3.2. Name and address of customer of Government agency

4.3.3. Name, telephone, fax number and/or email of customer contact or contracting officer

4.3.4. Dollar value

4.3.5. Period of performance/completion date

4.3.6. Description of work performed, and how the effort performed is relevant

4.3.7. Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

4.4. Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been completed during the past three (3) years from the issuance month of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

4.5. Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the Mortuary Services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude/complexity, contract environment and the cost/price factors of the Little Rock AFB requirement. For each recent or current past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the scope, magnitude/complexity and contract environment aspects (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to efforts that are of the type that are similar in scope, magnitude/complexity, and contract environment when compared to the services described in this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the offeror's past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror or teaming partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

4.6. Clearly establish roles of each party (who is prime and who is subcontractor, who is responsible for what tasks, contract administration, offers, work management, etc.).

4.7. Subcontractor past performance cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor, only if it is being used as part of the past performance evaluation.

4.8. Lack of any past performance will not automatically disqualify an offeror, but it is a factor that is considered in the Best Value Performance Price Tradeoff Source Selection described in FAR 52.212- 2.

4.9. If the offeror claims there is no past performance, then that status must be identified to the contracting officer no later than the date and time proposals are due from all offerors.

(End of Addendum)

52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services. (Feb 2026)

1. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation when the offeror responsible for conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors will be used to evaluate offers:

1.1. Price.

1.2. Technical Evaluation/Capability.

1.3. Past Performance

2. By submission of an offer, the offeror agrees to abide by all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation. Offers/Offerors that fail to furnish required representations for information or reject the terms and conditions of the solicitation may be considered non-responsive and/or excluded from consideration. (IAW 52.212-1)

3. This acquisition will utilize the best value approach, in which the Government seeks to award to an offeror who provides the greatest confidence that they will meet the Government’s requirements affordably. The Best Value technique for this acquisition will be Performance Price Tradeoff, where the technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

4. Evaluation Factors and Process Defined:

4.1. First the Government shall rank all responsive offers by price.

4.1.1. An offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated by summing up the proposed Unit Prices for CLINS 0001 through 0006.

4.1.2. The Government reserves the right to deem an offeror's overall quotation to be unresponsive when incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced pricing is submitted.

4.2. Second, the Government will look at the vendors technical capability and conduct a

Technical Evaluation, starting with the lowest priced evaluated responsive offer, to determine if they are “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable,” based on the offer/offeror meeting requirements as outlined in the PWS.

4.2.1. “Acceptable” means: the submitted quote meets the specifications, performance standards, and requirements described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the addendum to 52.212-1.

4.2.2. “Unacceptable” means: the submitted quote does not meet the specifications, performance standards, and requirements described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the addendum to 52.212-1

4.2.3. The Technical Evaluation processing of offers will continue (in order by price) until the Government determines that at least three (3) offerors are determined to have an “Acceptable” technical rating.

4.2.4. If there are less than 3 offers/offerors, the Government will perform a Technical

Evaluation on ALL offers/offerors.

4.2.5. If no offer/offeror is determined to be “Acceptable,” then no award will be made, and the Contracting Officer will re-evaluate the requirement.

4.3. Third, Past performance will be evaluated for the lowest three (3) priced technically acceptable quoter. The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy and quality of the quoters’ provided past performance information, and other past performance information data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources to include, but not limited to: Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and other databases.

4.3.1. Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency. Recent is defined as work within the last three (3) years from the issue month of the solicitation. The information provided must be on efforts/contracts that are ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

4.3.2. Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy and rated as relevant, or not relevant; according to the table below.

Adjectival Rating

Description

Very Relevant

Past performance effort satisfies all of the following criteria:

1. Scope: Involved commercial electrical branch circuit wiring, conduit/raceways, and device/sensor installations.

2. Size/Scale: Involved installation across 75 or more units, or device installation points.

3. Execution Environment: Work was performed in occupied facilities and included drywall repair, painting, and/or finish restoration following installation, with demonstrated ability to minimize disruption to occupants and efficiently return affected areas to an occupiable condition.

Relevant Past performance effort satisfies two (2) of the three (3) following criteria:

1. Scope: Involved commercial electrical branch circuit wiring, conduit/raceways, and device/sensor installations or related commercial electrical retrofits

2. Size/Scale: Involved installation across 25 to 74 rooms, units, or device installation points.

3. Execution Environment: Work was performed in occupied facilities, that included drywall repair, painting, and/or finish restoration following installation.

Somewhat Relevant Past performance effort satisfies one (1) of the three (3) following criteria:

1. Scope: Involved general commercial electrical installations, branch circuit additions, repairs, service maintenance, or single-location electrical distribution/panel work.

2. Size/Scale: Involved installation across fewer than 25 rooms, units, or device installation points

3. Execution Environment: Work was performed in a building/facility that was unoccupied or vacant, but required coordination with other ongoing construction, maintenance, or facility activities.

Not Relevant Past performance effort does not meet the criteria in one of the ratings listed above.

4.3.3. Quality of Performance. All recent past performance that is determined to be relevant will be reviewed to determine the quality of the offeror’s performance and general trends of the performance.

4.3.4. One of the following confidence ratings will be assigned to the evaluated offer:

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

This is the highest past performance rating an offeror can obtain.

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 not recent or relevant.

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

4.3.5. Fourth, the Government will proceed to award to the vendor that adheres to the instruction to offerors, has an acceptable rating for the Technical Factor and has a past performance rating that is most beneficial to the government. Should none of the three lowest priced quoters have acceptable past performance, the government will continue to assess the next lowest priced quoter until a vendor with an acceptable rating for the Technical Factor and a past performance rating that is most beneficial to the government is obtained. The Contracting Officer will then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision.

4.4. The Government reserves the right to communicate with all, some, or none of the offerors to address any issues, if necessary. The Government also reserves the right not to select a contractor, depending on the quality of the offers/offerors submitted and the availability of funds.

5. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before the award.

(End of Addendum)