That way makes sense. Evaluate Design uses the given design (64 runs) but you can evaluate designs for models other than the one for which it was designed.
The formula is simply the number of parameters to estimate. Your change to the model results in 79 parameters (1 intercept + 12 main effects + 66 two-factor interaction effects). (The number of interaction terms is the number of combinations of 12 factors chosen 2 at a time.) Your design provides 64 observations. So 15 parameters must be eliminated. That is one kind of deficiency of this design.
The second kind is the information provided by each run. As I explained, the regression process will expand the design matrix to make the model matrix. The column for estimating the intercept is a column of 1. The column for estimating the main effect of fac1 is the same as the data column for fac1 in the design matrix. The column for estimating the interaction effect of fac1 and fac2 is the product (cross) of the data columns for these two factors, fac1*fac2. Some of the columns in the model matrix are the same. This case indicates that you have aliases for that estimation column. Your estimate is the linear combination of all the alias effects. The linear combination is based on the parameter values and the correlations among the aliases.
So you cannot have aliases in the regression analysis. Aliases produce a singularity in the regression solution. JMP eliminates terms that are aliases. That is, you can estimate one of the effects but not all of the aliases.It is impossible to determine which of the effects should be used from the design or the regression. JMP arbitrarily identifies the aliases to eliminate. It removes 15 terms from the end of the list, that is, the last 15 interaction effects.