IB08 Solicitation Amendment W9124D26QA1350003 SF 30.pdf

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER.

If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

a. The delivery and performance period for Block 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification):

CLIN 0001 Phase-in is shifted from August 1, 2026 through August 31, 2026, to November 1, 2026 through November 30, 2026, while the Base period for CLIN 0002 is updated from September 1, 2026 through May 31, 2027 to December 1, 2026 through May 31, 2027.

b. FAR clause 52.222-90 (Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors) is incorporated by reference

c. 52.212-1and 52.212-2 have been updated to clarify quote submission and evaluation requirements as read in amendment 0003.

All questions must be submitted in writing via email to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer no later than 2:00 pm EST on 15 July 2026. Questions received after this deadline may not be answered.

Solicitation/Contract Form Continuation

The following changes have been made:

INFORMATION FROM TO

Response Due Time

02:00 PM 12:00 PM

Response Due Date

13 May 2026 10 Aug 2026

Continuation of Deliveries or Performance

The delivery information for the following CLIN(s) / SLIN(s) / ELIN(s) were modified:

INFORMATION FROM TO

Period of Performance

01 Aug 2026 to 31 Aug 2026 01 Nov 2026 to 30 Nov 2026

INFORMATION FROM TO

W9124D26QA1350003

Period of Performance

01 Sep 2026 to 31 May 2027 01 Dec 2026 to 31 May 2027

Contract Clauses

Additional Information/Notes

The following clauses were added:

FAR Clauses Incorporated by Reference Number Title Effective Date Alternate/

Deviation Variation Effective Date

52.222-90 Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors. (Deviation 2026-O0040, Revision 1)

Apr 2026

Addendum to Contract Clauses

Additional Information/Notes

The following clauses were modified:

52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Products and Commercial Services. (Deviation) Feb 2026 hereby reads as follows:

52.212-2 Evaluation--Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Feb 2026) (Deviation)

A. Basis for Award

(1) This is a best value sources selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.2 Evaluation and Award, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). Award will be made to a single offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal is rated, by an overall assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the most advantageous to the Government.

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Program Management and Strategic Planning;

Subfactor 2: Licensee Acquisition and Management;

Subfactor 3: Financial Management and Royalty Reporting

Subfactor 4: Brand Protection and Infringement Monitoring

Subfactor 5: Providing and maintaining the Product Approval Portal

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

(2) As a basis for award, trade-offs between non-price factors are permitted.

B. Award for All of the Work

The Government intends to award a single no-cost agreement as a result of this solicitation.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a no-cost agreement without negotiation. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct negotiations if the contracting officer determines them to be necessary. In the event that negotiations are held, a competitive range determination will be made. If the contracting officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the contracting officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

C. Evaluation Criteria

(1) Evaluation criteria consist of factors and subfactors. The proposals will be evaluated under the three (3) evaluation factors: Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Price.

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows:

All subfactors are determined to be critical and order of importance is provided below. An unacceptable rating in any subfactor will automatically carry forward to the factor rating.

Technical Capability is significantly more important than Past Performance or Price. Within the Technical Capability Factor, subfactor 1 is the most important. Subfactors 2 and 3 are equal, and are significantly more important than subfactors 4 and 5. Subfactors 4 and 5 are equal. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the Technical Capability Factor and all technical subfactors.

D. Evaluation Approach.

Evaluation criteria consist of three factors. The Government will evaluate whether the offeror's approach to the cited factor is the same in size, scope, and complexity to the nature of work. Evaluation criteria are used for measuring how well each offeror's approach meets the requirements of the solicitation requirements. Award will be made to the offeror who proposes the best value to the Government using trade-offs between non-price factors and rates. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the Technical Factor and a Performance Assessment Rating of at least the following: Relevancy: "Relevant" and Confidence: "Satisfactory."

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Program Management and Strategic Planning

Subfactor 2: Licensee Acquisition and Licensee Management

Subfactor 3: Financial Management and Royalty Reporting

Subfactor 4: Brand Protection and Infringement Monitoring

Subfactor 5: Product Approval Portal and Portal Management

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

b. a. Proposal that is determined to be most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors as follows: Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Price. Technical is significantly more important than Past Performance and Price. Past Performance is more important than Price. All subfactors are determined to be critical. An unacceptable rating in any subfactor will automatically carry forward to the facto rating. In evaluation the five subfactors within the Technical Capability factor, the order of consideration is as follows: subfactor 1 - Program Management and Strategic is the Planning most important. Subfactors 2 - Licensee Acquisition and Licensee Management and 3 -

, and are significantly more important Financial Management and Royalty Reporting are equal than subfactors 4 - and 5 - Product Approval Brand Protection and Infringement Monitoring Portal and Portal Management. Subfactors 4 and 5 are equal.

Factor 1: Technical Capability: The Government will evaluate the offeror's technical approach to performing all tasks outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The evaluation will assess the extent to which the offeror's narrative demonstrates a comprehensive and feasible approach to:

Subfactor 1: Program Management and Strategic Planning - The applicant must demonstrate a proven history of working with significant brands, immersing themselves in brand culture, developing comprehensive brand guides, and effectively representing brands in the commercial marketplace. The applicant must provide written evidence of:

Conducting and utilizing comprehensive market research.

Forecasting and capitalizing on emerging marketplace trends.

Mapping and targeting key consumer demographics.

Analyzing gaps in product categories and distribution channels, and successfully executing strategic plans to fill them.

Forging long-term strategic partnerships with licensees, manufacturers, and complementary agencies.

Creating and executing robust business development plans.

Providing monthly, quarterly, and custom reports on all relevant program data points.

Subfactor 2: Licensee Acquisition and Management- The applicant must showcase quantitative deal-making metrics and a proven methodology for aligning brand strategy with licensee capabilities. The applicant must provide written evidence of:

Creating and maintaining a rigorous licensee application process built around brand standards and objectives.

Establishing and meeting ambitious licensee recruitment goals.

Drafting airtight licensing contracts, including clear clauses for grants of rights, terms, and terminations.

Conducting targeted recruitment of licensees within specific, high-priority categories.

Negotiating favorable contracts that maximize benefits and protections for the brand.

Establishing competitive royalty rates and securing strong Minimum Guarantees (MGs).

Generating and systematically qualifying inbound and outbound leads.

Balancing and optimizing a large portfolio of licensees to drive mutual success.

Creating collaborative opportunities to drive licensee marketing and retail success.

Vetting and auditing prospective manufacturing facilities.

Subfactor 3: Financial Management and Royalty Reporting - The applicant must prove success in managing complex program finances, royalty reporting structures, and financial advances. The applicant must demonstrate a proven ability to:

Gather and verify quarterly royalty reports, ensuring licensees remain in strict compliance with contract terms.

Generate complex sales, royalty, and performance data visualizations.

Hold licensees financially accountable to their contractual and monetary commitments.

Leverage the royalty reporting process to provide granular data on which brand marks, properties, and product categories are performing best across specific distribution channels.

Verify Net Sales definitions and actively monitor deductions (e.g., returns, discounts, and applicable taxes).

Reconcile actual sales against agreed-upon royalty percentages.

Bill and track upfront advances upon contract execution.

Assess and invoice shortfall payments if a licensee fails to meet their annual Minimum Guarantee (MG).

Enforce contractually mandated underpayment interest and penalties.

Subfactor 4: Brand Protection and Infringement Monitoring- The applicant must prove they deploy a proactive, multi-layered defense strategy spanning strict legal structuring, rigorous product approval workflows, and ongoing licensee and market policing. The applicant must demonstrate success in the following areas:

Utilizing a dedicated legal team to negotiate contract specifics and defend intellectual property.

Developing, updating, and utilizing standardized templates for deal memos, license agreements, amendments, breach notices, and termination letters.

Enforcing clearly defined grants of rights, strictly limiting licenses by territory, distribution channel, and product category.

Conducting regular reviews of licensee websites, marketing channels, and sales reports.

Utilizing a professional audit team with the capability to travel and review complete licensee financial and shipping records.

Monitoring global physical and digital marketplaces for trademark infringement and counterfeit goods.

Executing rapid take-downs of infringing products, websites, and unauthorized companies.

Ensuring authorized licensed products are prominently positioned in the marketplace while infringing products are swiftly removed.

Subfactor 5: Providing and maintaining the Product Approval Portal- The applicant must demonstrate a successful history of utilizing and maintaining a digital design, marketing, and packaging review portal. Additionally, the applicant must prove success in:

Managing the daily approval workflow to prevent retail launch bottlenecks.

Enforcing strict compliance with brand style guides across all submissions.

Establishing a clear process for physical and digital sample collection and evaluation.

Employing strict quality control measures to ensure consistent brand integrity in the marketplace.

Enforcing packaging, marketing, and product compliance requirements prior to manufacturing.

Promptly resolving technical portal issues for licensees.

Providing comprehensive reports on licensee engagement and portal usage.

Utilizing the brand guide as a legal and aesthetic benchmark to ensure program-wide consistency for all products on store shelves.

c. Each technical capability subfactor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below, and then there will be an overall roll-up adjectival rating at the factor level. Technical Rating is used to portray the evaluation of strength and weaknesses in the Offerors' proposals. As these ratings and descriptions are broad, evaluators and selection officials may exercise their best judgment to assess the most appropriate rating or combination of ratings when no description is exactly applicable.

Adjectival Definition

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains at least one strengths and no deficiencies.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements.

The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

d. Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful agreement performance. Technical risk shall be rated using the ratings listed below.

Technical Risk Rating

Description

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

e. Factor 2: Past Performance: Past performance is defined as a subjective judgment about the quality of a firm's historical performance. This judgment may be based on statements of opinion about the quality of specific aspects of the firm's performance or about the quality of the firm's overall performance. These statements will be obtained from the firm's customers, business associates, government agencies, and from other knowledgeable persons and organizations. This judgment may be based on records of objective measurements and subjective ratings of specified performance attributes, if available. This factor is designed for the offeror to show a history of successful performance of similar work and to show ability to perform successively larger and more complex agreements. Success with other similar work which includes the target markets :

[(17-24-year-old) and influencer markets]young adults can indicate the probability of success with the agreement. Offerors are cautioned that when conducting the past performance assessment, the government may use data provided in the offeror's proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists. An offeror who does not have relevant past performance will not be rated favorably or unfavorably but will be given a neutral rating.

A determination of the offeror's past performance will be made. The government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevance. Each offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the agreement requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror's past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The following definitions shall be used when assessing past performance.

1) 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 performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2) Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services being procured under this solicitation. Relevant past performance is defined as relevant in terms of similar nature of work, size, and complexity.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown below. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance is a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Relevancy 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.

A relevancy determination of the offeror's (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive an "Unknown/Neutral" confidence rating.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well offerors have performed on referenced contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror's past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR

15.104 and DFARS 215.104-70 (CD 2026-O0048). The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

Assigning Ratings. Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings below.

Confidence Rating Description

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

f. Factor 3: Price: Price will not be rated. The government will evaluate percentage rates to determine fair and reasonableness using historical data of previous awards, business practices and resources. The offeror shall propose a flat percentage rate for each year as follows:

(i) The proposed commission percentage must be a single flat rate, inclusive of the base year (CLIN 0001) and all option years (CLINs 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001). Proposals that include stepping, graduated, or variable rates will be considered non-responsive.

(ii) The proposed rate must be fully burdened and encompass all program expenses, including but not limited to, compliance auditing, travel, product approval portal maintenance, brand protection /infringement services, and licensing expo expenses. No separate costs or fees will be considered.

(iii) Failure to provide a single flat commission percentage for all CLINs will result in the offer being considered unacceptable and will be rejected without further evaluation.

g. Options (if applicable). 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. The evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

h. Notice of award. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer 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 award.

(End of provision)

Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

The terms and conditions of FAR 52.212-1 are incorporated by reference. The following instructions supplement and, where there is a conflict, take precedence over the standard provision.

1.0 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1 Quotation Submission: All quotations must be submitted electronically via email to the Contract Specialist, Madison D. Bennett, at madison.d.bennett.civ@army.mil and Contracting Officer, Barbara J. Jeffries, at barbara.j.jeffries5.civ@army.mil. Quotations must be received no later than the date and time specified in Block 8 of the SF 1449. The subject line of the email must read:

"Quotation Submission: W9124D26QA135 -[Offeror's Company Name]".

1.2 Proposal Limitation: The proposal shall not exceed the limits stated herein. If the page limits are exceeded, the pages in excess of the limit will not be read. The Government will not accept any changes to the offeror's proposal after the closing date of the solicitation.

a. Page Limit Includes: All appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc. Does not include: Table of contents or Glossary.

b. What Counts As A Page: A page shall be an 8 1/2" X 11". Letter size and spacing requirements for illustrations and tables can be at the discretion of the offeror but must be easily readable.

Margins shall be at least one (1) inch on all sides. The Offeror shall number each page in order to eliminate any confusion. In the event offeror creates an ambiguity in their numbering of pages, the Government will exercise its own discretion in counting pages.

c. Indexing. Each electronic file (volume) shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

d. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with a definition for each.

1.3 Quotation Content and Format: Vendors shall submit their quotation in two (2) separate PDF files as follows. Failure to adhere to the page limits or submission format may result in the quotation being considered non-responsive.

File 1: Technical and Past Performance Quotation. This file shall be named [Offeror Name] _Vol_1_Technical.pdf. It must contain:

Volume I - Technical Approach (Factor 1) (20-page maximum): A narrative describing the company's approach to performing all tasks in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). At a minimum, address the approach to the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Program Management and Strategic Planning

Subfactor 2: Licensee Acquisition and Licensee Management

Subfactor 3: Financial Management and Royalty Reporting

Subfactor 4: Brand Protection and Infringement Monitoring

Subfactor 5: Product Approval and Portal Management.

Volume II - Past Performance (Factor 2) (10-page limit): Offeror's past performance information should be for no more than three (3) requirements similar in size, scope, and complexity as defined herein during the past five (5) years from the issuance of the solicitation, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Relevant past performance is any trademark licensing contract of similar size, scope and complexity to the requirements of the solicitation.

Documentation submitted shall include information for a minimum of two contracts demonstrating prior work performed in using a licensing program to promote another party's brands/trademarks.

In addition, evidence of success with increasingly large, complex work, or work for a target market [young adults (17-24-year-old) and influencer markets] can indicate the probability of success with this agreement. The offeror shall provide documentation outlining the contracts performed, as a prime or subcontractor. Information shall include type of service provided, duration of contract in months and/or years, location, Government contract number and purchasing office (if applicable) with a minimum of two points of contact/references with telephone numbers. Non-Government contracts may be used if Government contracts are not available. The offeror may also describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate possession of a high-quality process for providing the services required. Include information on what segment of the company received the award or certification and describe when the award or certification was bestowed. Offerors are cautioned that when conducting the past performance assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror's proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists. In general, offerors will be afforded the opportunity to respond to negative comments received during past performance evaluation, except for those already addresses by the contractor (i.e., response to contract discrepancy notices, cure notices, show cause notices, etc.) Offerors are not afforded an opportunity to respond to negative comments documented in PPIRS, SPRS, or

CPARS.

Past performance information described herein is required on the offeror to perform 10 percent or more of the proposed effort. Percentage of performance is to be identified. The offeror shall submit, an executed consent letter by and for each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information. Consent letter shall reference the legal name of the subcontractor with Unique Entity ID or CAGE number identified.

For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance.

File 2: Price Quotation and Solicitation Documents. This file shall be named [Offeror Name] _Vol_2_Price.pdf. It must contain:

Price Quotation (Factor 3): On company letterhead, clearly state the proposed Commission Percentage. This single percentage is the all-inclusive price for all performance periods (base and all options).The proposal shall address and provide specific flat commission percentages per year for the license agreement; any proposed stepping rates will not be considered as part of the commission. Offerors must provide and submit a single, comprehensive flat commission percentage for all CLINs to include the Base year (CLINs 0001 and 0002) and Option years (CLINs 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001) which will serve as the maximum compensation rates upon award, and failure to provide rates for all CLINS will result in disqualification. the proposal must detail all services covered by any contractor-retained commission percentages, ensuring that the provided flat rates fully encompass and account for all program expenses, including compliance auditing, travel, product approval portal maintenance, brand protection/infringement services, and licensing expo expenses, as referenced in PWS paragraph 6.14.

Completed SF 1449: A completed and signed SF 1449.

Completed Representations and Certifications: Confirmation of an active and complete registration in SAM.gov at the time of submission.

Acknowledged Amendments: Signed copies of any amendments to this solicitation.

2.0 QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SOLICITATION

All questions must be submitted in writing via email to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer no later than 2:00 pm EST on 15 July 2026. Questions received after this deadline may not be answered.

(End of Addendum)

KO DIRECTORATE OF CONTRACTIN, BLDG 1109B RM 250

FORT KNOX, KY 40121-5000

UNITED STATES

MADISON BENNETT, EMAIL: MADISON.D.BENNETT.CIV@ARMY.MIL TELEPHONE: 502-624- 6862

AdminBy:

SCD: PAS: