Sol_140P4326R0002_Amd_0003.pdf

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 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.

E. IMPORTANT: is not is required copies to the issuing office.

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

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

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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)

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

PAGESOF

Contractor

The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers to sign this document and return

Jason Albright

See continuation page

NPS, NER - NE MABO

Boston National Historical Park Charlestown Navy Yard Building I-1 Boston MA 02129-4543

PNN

140P4326R0002

02/03/2026

01/13/2026

1 8

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGES

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

SUPPLIES/SERVICES

(B)

UNIT

(D)

UNIT PRICE

(E)

AMOUNT

(F)

OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

Sponsored by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.110

ITEM NO.

(A)

QUANTITY

(C)

NSN 7540-01-152-8067

140P4326R0002/0003

Cape Cod National Seashore - Replace Septic

System at Delfino and Eggleston 2

The purpose of this amendment is to provide a list of attendees to the organized pre-bid site-visit conducted on January 30, 2026, and to provide an amended Section M - Evaluation

Factors for Award to remove any reference to

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source

Selection Process and replace it with the correct references to the Best Value Continuum

Tradeoff Process defined at FAR Part 15.1.

Therefore:

1. List of attendees to the January 30, 2026, site-visit is attached.

2. Revised Section M - Evaluation Factors for

Award is incorporated to remove any reference to Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source

Selection Process and replace it with the correct references to the Best Value Continuum

Tradeoff Process defined at FAR Part 15.1

Period of Performance: 09/30/2026 to

02/28/2027

Solicitation Date

Document No.

140P4326R0002

Document Title

ConOps East- Boston – Cape Cod National Seashore – Replace Septic System at Delfino and Eggleston 2

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Government will conduct a source selection using the Best Value Continuum Tradeoff Process defined at FAR Part 15.1. The Contracting Officer (CO) will obligate and award a contract to the offeror who submits a proposal the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conforms to solicitation requirements; is fair and reasonable; and provides the best value to the government considering all evaluation factors combined as detailed below. For this acquisition, the CO is the SSA.

2. The Government may accept other than the lowest priced proposal when the perceived benefits of a higher priced proposal merit the price differential.

3. Additionally, pursuant to FAR 52.215-1(f), Contract Award, contained herein:

The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the Government’s interest.

The Government may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the CO later determines them to be necessary.

B. EVALUATION PROCESS

All proposal evaluations will be conducted in strict confidence. The number and identities of offerors and proposal contents will be revealed only to individuals involved in the evaluation process. No information will be revealed to other offerors. The evaluation process is as follows:

1. Initial Review: Proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the solicitation to verify that all submission requirements are met; all certifications are complete, and the offeror is responsive and otherwise eligible to receive award of a Federal contract. If the proposal does not comply or lacks sufficient information to be meaningfully evaluated, it may be eliminated from further consideration for award.

2. Non-Price Evaluation: A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) comprised of Government personnel, with assistance from non-Government advisors when required, will conduct a non-price evaluation of proposals.

The TEP will review and evaluate proposals against the technical factors contained in this solicitation. The TEP will not have knowledge of any pricing until the technical evaluation is complete. One of the following rating will be assigned to each of the Technical subfactors evaluated.

Technical Ratings. The ratings below include the consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in an offeror’s proposal. These shall be used on all technical factors and sub-factors and sufficient documentation supporting these ratings shall be included with the ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Proposal is unawardable without discussions.

Document No.

140P4326R0002

Document Title

ConOps East- Boston – Cape Cod National Seashore –

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and thus contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable without discussions.

3. Past Performance Evaluation: The TEP and CO/SSA will also evaluate offerors’ past performance. The evaluation will assess the government’s confidence level for offers to successfully perform contract requirements based on PPIRS data, and other pertinent, relevant information.

Past Performance Evaluations/Documentation shall address the following three items.

(i)Recency: Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

(ii)Relevance: In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement.

Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

(iii)Quality: The past performance evaluation conducted 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 15.304(c)(3)(ii). The Past Performance Evaluation will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information.

Once the past performance evaluation is completed, one of the following ratings shall be assigned.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating

Adjectival 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 little or no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence 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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Document No.

140P4326R0002

Document Title

ConOps East- Boston – Cape Cod National Seashore –

4. Price Evaluation: Upon completion of the technical evaluation, the TEP and CO/SSA will review pricing.

Proposed pricing is an evaluation factor. Proposed pricing will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness.

Reasonableness will be determined in accordance with the proposal analysis technics identified in the FAR, DIAR and all other applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The TEP will make an award recommendation to the CO/SSA.

5. Selection: The CO/SSA will select the proposal that provides the overall best value, considering all evaluation factors, to the Government for award. The Government may elect to accept other than the lowest priced proposal when the perceived benefits of a higher priced proposal merit the price differential.

C. EVALUATION FACTORS

1. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

a. Non-Price Factors: All non-price factors are of equal importance.

b. Overall: Proposed pricing is an evaluation factor. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined are approximately equally important to price.

c. Price: Proposed pricing is an evaluation factor. Proposed pricing will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness. Reasonableness will be determined in accordance with the proposal analysis technics identified in the FAR, DIAR and all other applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.

2. VOLUME I – NON-PRICE PROPOSAL

a. Technical Factors

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

Technical approach is the factual documentation of the firm’s ability to meet the specifications.

The firm’s means and methods to complete a technical aspect of required work in this solicitation.

There is no preprinted form for this submittal. Describe the approach to successfully accomplish MA DEP permitting process and inspection coordination. Removal of old septic system, installation of new, inspections, MADEP coordination, installation and permit closeout. Demolition sequencing to minimize site disruption. Mitigation plans for high-risk areas; Permit delays (especially MA DEP timelines). Material lead times and potential cost volatility due to tariffs.

Identify potential related risks or reasons for project time or cost impacts and your solutions to mitigate and resolve them.

Offerors shall submit a detailed narrative description of the proposed methods and approaches to performing the facility improvement work, as well as the Offeror’s understanding of the scope of work and capability to perform the work within the performance period. The proposed work plan shall include sequencing and coordination of all work, quality control reporting, scheduling, and temporary contingency planning or risk buffers. Provide a Gantt-style schedule identifying the critical path, permitting milestones, and contingency allowances.

FACTOR 2 – PROJECT EXPERIENCE

Relevant experience is the factual documentation or narrative of a firm’s experience, qualifications, and capability. Project experience demonstrating (1) capability to successfully complete relevant projects of similar scope and magnitude to this solicitation; (2) strong technical knowledge and skill required for this solicitation; and (3) effective management, problem solving, communication, coordination, and organization present lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated. Those not demonstrating these attributes present higher levels of risk and will be less favorably rated. Contracts must have been performed or managed by the prime offeror, as

Document No.

140P4326R0002

Document Title

ConOps East- Boston – Cape Cod National Seashore – either a prime contractor or subcontractor, clearly demonstrating the ability to meet the specifications in the Scope of Work. Experience within the Department of Interior or US Forest Service is preferred and may be rated more favorably. Understanding of the regulatory environment and coastal construction context in Massachusetts. Demonstrated experience coordinating with MA DEP and other state/local authorities. Identification of local subcontractors, vendors, or resources that reduce logistical risk. Provide a narrative describing experience with similar permitting processes in Massachusetts, any prior work on Cape Cod, and planned use of local resources.

Offerors shall submit no more than three examples of projects similar in scope, size, and complexity to this requirement, completed within the past five years. Information for each project shall include Project Description, beginning and ending contract values, any problems encountered during performance, including how problems were resolved, and contact information for project owners.

FACTOR 3 – MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE

Describe the proposed project organizational structure including the prime contractor, key personnel, and proposed subcontractors. Describe how the subcontractors will be selected, their qualifications and how the prime will manage and coordinate them. Management approaches demonstrating (1) sound management practices and business processes; (2) effective cost and quality control; and (3) clear corporate and project team commitment, hierarchy and lines of communication, roles, responsibilities, and relationships present lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated. Plans not demonstrating these attributes present higher levels of risk and will be less favorably rated.

FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance demonstrating higher levels of success and quality on more relevant projects similar in scope and magnitude to this solicitation present lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated. Projects that are more relevant to the requirements of this solicitation will be given more weight in the overall past performance rating. Project Experience ratings (Factor 2) will be considered in determining relevancy for projects submitted under this factor. If an offeror has no past performance on similar work relevant to this solicitation, they will not meet technical acceptability.

Past performance on contracts with the Federal Government, other public agencies, or private organizations will be considered. All submitted references may not be contacted. Sources other than submitted references may be contacted.

In making a determination, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s proposal and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, or other Government personnel.

During proposal evaluations, exchanges between the Government and offerors may occur to clarify the relevance of past performance information and/or address adverse past performance information which an offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond to.Offeror shall submit references for a minimum of three projects previously successfully completed within the last five years. All reference projects shall be similar in size, scope, and complexity. Information may be regarding the offeror's firm and/or its proposed subcontractors performing key trades and other critical activities. Subcontractor past performance will only be considered if it correlates to the

Document No.

140P4326R0002

Document Title

ConOps East- Boston – Cape Cod National Seashore – work the subcontractor will be performing on this requirement. Include the following:

a) Narrative description of the referenced contract

b) Location, and event name

c) Dollar value

d) Client name

e) Project POC title, name, email, phone number

3. VOLUME II – BUSINESS PROPOSAL: Submittals in Volume II will not be rated.

a. Standard Form (SF) 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, will be reviewed for completeness.

b. Amendment(s) acknowledgement(s) will be reviewed for timely and proper acknowledgement.

c. Representations and certification information will be reviewed for completeness and award eligibility.

(End of provision)

Sponsored by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.110