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. Is rated "Acceptable" in Factor 4 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan);

d. Offers the lowest evaluated price; and

e. 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.

The term “technical,” as used herein, refers to non-price factors. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. The acceptability of product or service shall be addressed in every LPTA source selection through consideration of one or more non-price evaluation factors. For LPTAs, this is done through the establishment of minimum requirements to be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-price factors. To be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor. Although, offerors are required to submit a Technical Proposal, a Pre-Award Survey may also be required to determine responsibility of products and ancillary services.

Factor 1: The technical team will review the proposals submitted by each Offeror to evaluate and analyze their Technical Capability. This evaluation will ensure minimum requirements are met, with proposals rated as either acceptable or unacceptable based on the criteria outlined in the table below. The Technical Capability evaluation will address the following subfactors at a minimum:

Subfactor 1 a. Production capability per day of proposed fill plant (s). At a minimum, the contractor shall have the capacity to produce and deliver a minimum of approximately 543 pounds per day, (198,000 pounds annually) for a total of 990,000 pounds over the 5-year ordering period.

Subfactor 1 b. Bulk storage capacity for products offered. The Contractor shall provide a minimum of two (2) HPH storage tanks, with a combined usable capacity of at least 250,000 pounds and adequate warehouse storage space for drummed product.

Subfactor 1 c. If the offeror will be making deliveries into contractor-provided bulk tanks or drums, describe type, storage capacity in pounds, the number and size of tanks that will be used for storage of product at vendor’s location. The offeror must have a minimum of two (2) bulk storage tanks, each with a minimum capacity of 250,000 pounds. Additionally, the offer must provide adequate warehouse space drummed product at the vendor’s location.

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

a. Propellant, High Purity Hydrazine (HPH) provided under this contract shall meet the requirements of MIL- PRF-26536G w/Amendment 1, dated 13 July 2021.

b. Propellant, Hydrazine Water 70/30 (H70) provided under this contract shall meet the requirements of MIL-PRF-87930C, w/Amendment 1 dated 26 Jun 2021.

c. The offeror’s quality control procedures must include, at a minimum, the following elements:

d. Regular inspections at key points in the production process. Testing of raw materials and finished products against specification requirements. Traceability of all products through the production and delivery process. Documentation of quality control results and corrective actions taken to address any non-conformance. A system to ensure that all products shipped under the contract meet the applicable MIL-PRF specifications.

Subfactor 1 e. The offeror shall provide a quality sampling plan that ensures each shipment meets the product specifications, with a minimum requirement to apply tamper-indicating devices (TIDs), such as seals or caps, to each shipping container immediately after filling and sampling. TIDs must be securely applied to prevent tampering, with serial numbers included where possible, and the container and TID numbers must be recorded on both the certificate of analysis and shipping documents. (Refer to the CONTRACTOR SEAL REQUIREMENT in Attachment A - Statement of Objectives).

Subfactor 1 f. HPH and H70 Pre-production Samples Approval:

a. In accordance with Attachment C – Energy QAP E45- Manufacturing Qualification Requirement Hydrazine: The Contractor shall have a production facility capable of producing High Purity Hydrazine (HPH) and Hydrazine Water 70/30 (H70) as required by the schedule and meeting the required product specification. From this completed production facility, the Contractor shall produce and deliver a preproduction sample of HPH by the time specified in the solicitation schedule. At a minimum:

b. The contractor shall submit a certificate of analysis showing compliance with the most recent version of the relevant specification MIL-PRF-26536 (HPH) or MIL-PRF-87930C (H70). The Certificate of Analysis (COA) must reflect testing conducted within the last 12 months and be reflective of current production processes. Contractor shall email a certified copy of the analysis to the DLA Aerospace Energy Contracting Officer tammie.campbell@dla.mil and tech.prop@dla.mil or mail to:

DLA Energy Aerospace- FEM

1525 Wurtsmith Street

Building 5730

JBSA-Lackland TX 78236

c. The Contractor shall draw two (2) representative homogenous 2-liter samples of their HPH or MMH from different production batches for batch type processes or on different production dates for continuous type processes. The sample must be shipped in accordance with all applicable DOT regulations to:

Propellant Evaluation Samples

CRCA Laboratory Fuel Storage Area 1, Bldg. 73019

Cape Canaveral, Florida 32952

Solicitation Number: SPE60125R0312

d. The preproduction sample must be received by the solicitation close date.

e. Offeror shall submit a copy of preproduction sample shipment tracking number, and/or submit a certified copy of the analysis with the proposal.

Subfactor 1 g. Supply Commitment Letter: If the offeror is not the manufacturer of the product to be delivered under the contract or is otherwise proposing to provide product from a fill plant or production facility other than one owned and operated by the offeror, the offeror shall provide a written supply commitment letter from the “owner” of production facility from where the product will be obtained in performance of any resultant contract. The supply commitment letter shall be submitted on owner’s fill plant company letterhead. The written supply commitment letter shall clearly indicate:

a. The owner of the fill plant or production facility is willing to provide the products and/or services quantities required to be delivered/performed under any resultant contract for the duration of the delivery period shown in the Schedule.

b. Confirmation of the quantity and specification of the products to be delivered.

c. The supply commitment letter shall include the signature of the owner of the fill plant or production facility. It shall be presented on the official letterhead of the manufacturer's company and dated within the solicitation period.

Subfactor 1 h. Management Approach: Offeror shall describe their management approach for the production, storage, and distribution of bulk HPH and H70 while overseeing an Energy Aerospace Support Point (EASP), acknowledging their responsibilities in accordance with the solicitation's Attachment B – Aerospace Requirements. The management approach must also comply with the following DLA clauses:

a. I-0003 I116.05.100 (Responsibility for Government-Owned Energy Aerospace Products).

b. I-0004 I119.03.100 (Inventory Control Records and Systems of Record at the Contractor Energy Aerospace Support Point).

c. Attachment H – DLA Energy P-11.

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

The objective of this subfactor is to evaluate the offeror's production capabilities and their ability to meet the required quantities as outlined in the solicitation. The PAS is a critical assessment tool used to evaluate the offeror's capacity to fulfill the contract requirements, mitigate potential risks associated with non-performance, and assess the adequacy of the offeror's facilities, processes, and resources. Minimum Requirement to be Acceptable:

a. Pre-Award Survey Compliance: The offeror must comply with the requirement to submit the completed Attachment D - QAP E33.10 Manufacturing and Fill-Point as part of their proposal. Failure to submit the required documentation will result in an unacceptable evaluation.

b. Production Capability Assessment: The offeror’s facilities, equipment, and processes must be sufficient to meet the production demands of the solicitation, as evaluated through the Pre-Award Survey. This includes an adequate assessment of manufacturing capacity, operational efficiency, and resource availability.

c. Risk Mitigation and Performance Assurance: The offeror must demonstrate a clear plan for mitigating potential risks related to non-performance, including any measures for ensuring sufficient capacity for meeting delivery timelines and production volume requirements.

d. On-Site Review (If Applicable): If the PAS requires an on-site review, the offeror must allow the Government or designated representative access to their production facilities to assess their ability to meet the production requirements. Failure to facilitate the on-site review or pass the PAS will render the offeror’s proposal unacceptable.

e. Responsibility Determination: Failure to meet the minimum requirements outlined in the PAS or to provide offers for all solicitation line items may lead to a negative impact on the offeror’s responsibility determination and may result in the proposal being deemed non-compliant.

Evaluation Criteria:

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

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.

Subfactor 1 j. 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 Storage Point (ESP) operations and managing DLA-Owned Legacy HPH and H70 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 HPH and H70 (approximately 150,000 pounds of product).

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.

Factor: 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

Factor 4: Small Business Subcontracting Plan

2.2. 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, Factor 2 Past Performance and Factor 4 Small Business Subcontracting Plan, 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).

2.3. Factor 1 – Technical

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

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

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.

2.3.1 Factor 2 - Past Performance

2.3.1.1 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:

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 325180.

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

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 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 6-month extension shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

The total evaluated price will be derived by calculated using half of the Year 5 product estimated quantity, six months of MMFF, and one of each of the other ancillary services.

ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-4: Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Products and Commercial Services. The addendum governs the 6-month contract extension period and adds paragraph (w), Industry-Specific Extension.

2.5 Factor 4- Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Plan

2.5.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan based on the following criteria:

2.5.2 Goals: The extent to which the Offeror’s proposed subcontracting goals represent a realistic and ambitious commitment to maximizing small business participation in the performance of this contract. The Government will consider the percentage of total subcontracting dollars allocated to small businesses, the specific types of work to be subcontracted, and the Offeror's rationale for the proposed goals. Higher consideration will be given to plans that exceed minimum goals.

2.5.3 Outreach Efforts: The effectiveness of the Offeror’s plan for identifying and soliciting small businesses, including SDBs, WOSBs, EDWOSBs, VOSBs, and SDVOSBs. The Government will consider the Offeror’s proposed methods for conducting market research, attending industry events, utilizing government resources, and establishing relationships with small business organizations. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror's commitment to providing technical assistance and mentorship to small businesses.

2.5.4 Implementation and Monitoring: The adequacy of the Offeror's plan for implementing and monitoring the Small Business Subcontracting Plan throughout the contract performance period.

The Government will consider the Offeror’s proposed methods for tracking subcontracting activity, reporting progress to the Government, and ensuring compliance with the terms of the subcontracting plan.

2.5.5 Past Performance (if applicable): The Offeror’s past performance in meeting small business subcontracting goals on previous contracts. The Government will consider information from Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other relevant sources. If the Offeror has no relevant past performance, this factor will be evaluated neutrally.

2.5.6 Assurances: The extent to which the Offeror provides assurances that it will:

1. Include FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, in all subcontracts that offer further subcontracting opportunities.

2. Cooperate in any studies or surveys requested by the contracting agency.

3. Submit reports in accordance with contract requirements.

4. Ensure that small businesses have an equitable opportunity to compete for subcontracts.

5. Maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the subcontracting plan.

2.5.7 Small Business Subcontracting Plan Rating:

The SB subcontracting plan will be rated on a scale of “Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable,” as detailed in the evaluation table below.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan Rating Method Adjective

Rating Description

Acceptable

The Offeror demonstrates a minimum commitment to maximizing small business participation. The proposed subcontracting goals are acceptable, and the plan for implementation and monitoring is satisfactory. The Offeror has an acceptable track record of meeting small business subcontracting goals (if applicable) and provides adequate assurances of compliance.

Unacceptable

The Offeror fails to demonstrate an minimum commitment to maximizing small business participation. The proposed subcontracting goals are unrealistic or inadequate, the outreach efforts are insufficient, and the plan for implementation and monitoring is poorly defined. The Offeror has a poor track record of meeting small business subcontracting goals (if applicable) and provides inadequate assurances of compliance or fails to submit small business subcontracting plan in accordance with solicitation.

(End of Addendum)