Attachment K - Addendum FAR 52.212-2_Revised.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

1.0. Evaluation.

1.1. Basis for Contract Award. Awards will be made to the offeror whose proposal meets or exceeds the acceptability standards for the technical factors/subfactors and past performance, as stated in the Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1, and has the lowest evaluated price. All proposals will be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability. Failure to meet any requirement may result in a proposal being determined technically unacceptable. Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding the acceptability standards. The award will be made to the offeror who:

a. Is rated "Acceptable" in Factor 1 and all subfactors (Technical);

b. Is rated "Acceptable" or "Neutral" in Factor 2 (Past Performance);

c. Offers the lowest evaluated price; and

d. Whose proposal conforms to all solicitation requirements (including all terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and any other information required by the solicitation).

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one five-year Firm, Fixed-Price Requirements-Type contracts for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposal and prices submitted.

1.3. Rejection of Offers. The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions.

1.4. Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions). Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements such as: terms and conditions; representations and certifications; SOO requirements; and those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offeror shall take no exception to the solicitation requirements.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors Used to Evaluate. Award will be made to offeror combination deemed most advantageous to the Government, following an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1: Technical capability will be measured against requirements specified in the solicitation.

As such, technical capability is considered acceptable when the offeror’s proposal is in compliance with the requirements of the solicitation and address factors and sub-factors below:

Subfactor 1a. Production capability per day of proposed fill plant(s). At a minimum, the contractor shall have the capacity to produce and deliver at least 519 gallons per day, for a total of 675,000 gallons over the 5-year ordering period.

Subfactor 1b. Bulk storage capacity for products offered. The contractor shall provide a minimum of two (2) JP-10 storage tanks, with a combined usable capacity of at least 135,000 gallons.

Subfactor 1c. If the offeror will be making deliveries into contractor-provided bulk tanks or drums, the offeror shall describe the type, storage capacity, number, and size of tanks used for storage at the vendor’s location. At a minimum, the offeror must have two (2) bulk storage tanks, each with a minimum capacity of 67,500 gallons. Additionally, the offeror must provide a minimum of twenty (20) drums, each with a minimum capacity of 55 gallons, to store the product. The total storage capacity must meet the required incremental build of 100,000 gallons over time, beginning after First Article Test Acceptance.

Subfactor 1d. The offeror shall describe in-process quality control procedures that will ensure the production and delivery of on-spec products. These procedures must meet the following minimum requirements:

a. JP-10 provided under this contract shall meet the requirements of MIL-DTL- 87107F w/Amendment 1.

b. PF-1 provided under this contract shall meet the requirements of MIL-DTL- 87173D w/Amendment 1.

c. The offeror’s quality control procedures must include: regular inspections at key points, testing of raw materials and finished products, traceability of all products, documentation of quality control results, and corrective actions for non-conformance.

Subfactor 1e. The offeror shall provide a quality sampling plan to ensure each shipment meets the product specifications. At a minimum, tamper-indicating devices (TIDs) must be applied to each shipping container immediately after filling and sampling.

Subfactor 1f. Pre-production samples/previous testing: The offerors must demonstrate that their JP-10 and PF-1 products have been properly tested. If previously tested by a DoD lab, submit a certified copy of the analysis with the proposal. If not, confirm submission in accordance with solicitation Attachment C – Aerospace Energy QAP 45.01.

Subfactor 1g. Supply Commitment Letter: If the offeror is not the manufacturer, the offeror shall provide a supply commitment letter from the production facility.

Subfactor 1h. Management Approach: Offeror shall describe their management approach for overseeing bulk JP-10 and PF-1 at the Energy Aerospace Support Point (EASP) in accordance with the solicitation’s Attachment B.

Subfactor 1i. Pre-Award Survey (PAS) and Manufacturing Fill-Point Capability Review:

The offeror must comply with requirements to submit the completed Attachment D - QAP E33.10. Failure to submit the required documentation will result in an unacceptable evaluation.

Evaluation Criteria:

The offeror’s ability to meet production demands and timelines based on the evaluation of Attachment D - QAP E33.10.

DLA Quality Assurance Representative (QAR) Assessment of manufacturing processes, fill-point capacity, and quality control measures.

The offeror’s demonstrated commitment to mitigating risks associated with non-performance.

Compliance with PAS requirements, including submission of necessary documentation and participation in any required on-site evaluations of offerors manufacturing fill-point.

Subfactor 1j. Transition Plan – Legacy DLA Owned Into-stock Product

The offeror shall provide a comprehensive Legacy DLA-Owned Into Stock Product Transition Plan that demonstrates its capability to assume 100% responsibility for handling Energy Supply Point (ESP) operations and managing DLA-Owned Legacy JP- 10 and PF-1 immediately upon contract award. The transition plan shall detail storage, transportation, logistics, personnel, and risk mitigation measures to ensure uninterrupted operations.

The Government will evaluate the proposed Legacy DLA-Owned Into Stock Product Transition Plan based on the following criteria:

1. Storage Capacity & Readiness (Adequacy of On-Site Storage):

a. The offeror must provide documentation demonstrating the availability of adequate, secure, and compliant storage facilities at their site that meet all applicable storage and safety requirements for DLA-Owned Legacy JP-10 and PF-1.

b. The plan must include a facility layout, inventory management process, and compliance measures for handling and storing these products.

2. ESP Operations & Management Transition:

a. The offeror must provide a detailed timeline and methodology for assuming full ESP operations responsibility immediately upon contract award.

b. The transition plan must outline staffing assignments, operational procedures, and logistics workflows to ensure a seamless handover.

c. Contingency measures must be included to address potential delays, disruptions, or personnel shortages.

3. Risk Mitigation & Continuity of Operations:

a. The offeror must present a low-risk approach to the transition, including contingency strategies for potential bottlenecks or unforeseen challenges.

b. The plan must outline measures to maintain compliance with safety, environmental, and regulatory requirements.

c. Offerors must demonstrate an ability to rapidly respond to issues affecting fuel integrity, supply chain disruptions, or infrastructure constraints.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s transition plan to determine if it is realistic, feasible, and presents a low risk to mission continuity. A rating of Acceptable will be assigned if the offeror meets all requirements with minimal risk, while a rating of Unacceptable will be given if the plan is inadequate or presents a high risk to operations.

Factor: 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.1. Evaluation Methodology. The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for award. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal (s) meeting the acceptability standards for Factor 1 Technical and Factor 2 Past Performance, who has been determined responsible and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation).

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

The technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below.

The Technical Factor is considered acceptable when the Offeror(s) technical proposal demonstrates a robust approach and adequately addresses Factor 1 and subfactors as outlined in FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Products and Commercial Services, Volume I Technical Proposal.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

2.3. Factor 2 - Past Performance

2.3.1 Past performance will be assessed based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance for contracts similar to those outlined in the solicitation. The evaluation will focus on whether the offeror has successfully performed similar contracts, including production and delivery, and quality control measures aligned with the solicitation’s requirements.

Sources of Past Performance Information:

1. Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited, within their proposal.

2. The Contracting Officer shall obtain past performance information from agencies identified by the offeror.

3. Past performance information may also be gathered from other available Government sources, including but not limited to:

• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

• Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

• Other applicable government databases.

Past performance will be used as an evaluation factor within the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) process, unless waived by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii). Past performance shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. However, the comparative assessment described in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply in this case.

Rating:

Past performance will be rated on a scale of “Acceptable,” “Unacceptable,” or “Neutral,” as detailed in the evaluation table below.

The Government will assess the relevancy of past performance based on the following criteria:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). Therefore, the Offeror will be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable”.

Past Performance Rating Method

The performance must involve contracts of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity, particularly those involving production and delivery of products similar to those listed in the solicitation, and in quantities comparable to those requested under NAICS Code 325199.

The offeror’s past performance should demonstrate the ability to manage multiple deliveries of products, incorporating in-process quality control measures aligned with the solicitation’s requirements.

Relevant Past Performance includes:

Contracts involving production and delivery of similar products in quantities or frequencies comparable to those in the solicitation.

Demonstrated use of quality control procedures during production, ensuring compliance with product specifications and timely deliveries.

Not Relevant Past Performance includes:

Contracts that do not meet the relevant criteria (e.g., different product types, significantly smaller or larger quantities, or lack of quality control procedures).

One-time deliveries that do not demonstrate the ability to perform under ongoing, large-scale contract requirements.

Past performance that does not meet these relevancy criteria will not be considered in the evaluation for acceptability.

2.4. Factor 3- Price

2.4.1 Price proposals shall be evaluated in accordance with the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) procedures. The price will be evaluated to determine the reasonableness of the total evaluated price based on adequate price competition.

2.4.2 Reasonableness: The determination of price reasonableness will involve reviewing all the proposed CLINs. It is anticipated that adequate price competition will satisfy the requirement for price reasonableness for this effort. In general, adequate price competition is sufficient to ensure price reasonableness. For a price to be considered reasonable, it must represent a price that a prudent person would pay, taking into account market prices and affordability. If adequate price competition is not obtained, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, the Government may require additional information to support the proposed price.

2.4.3 Balance: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to CLIN prices, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4.4 Data Other than Certified Pricing Data: If required by the Contracting Officer, data other than certified pricing shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing.

2.4.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): TEP will be used for evaluation purpose only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

The total evaluated price will be derived by multiplying the estimated quantity times the unit price for the CLINs 0001 through 0005.

I209.09 EXTENSION PROVISION (DLA ENERGY JAN 2012) is included and allows the Government to extend the period of performance for up to six (6) months on a unilateral basis.

The method for evaluating the extension period and its associated quantities is to multiply an additional six months of requirements by the offered unit price and then to add that total evaluated price to the existing evaluated price for each line item

(End of Addendum)