Solicitation Amendment FA448426R00010006 SF 30.pdf

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

J

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

21 Sep 2026

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE

REQUISITION NUMBER

5. PROJECT NUMBER (if applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE FA4484

FA4484 87 CONS PK

BLDG 2402 CP 609 754 2413, 2402 VANDENBERG AVE

JBMDL, NJ 08641

UNITED STATES

Christina Vargas, Email: christina.vargas.1@us.af.mil Christina Vargas, Email: christina.vargas.1@us.af.mil Telephone: 650-4824

7. ADMINISTERED BY (if other than Item 6)

CODE

SCD: PAS:

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

CODE: FACILITY CODE:

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

FA448426R0001

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20 Jul 2026

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. 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; 1 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) See Section G - Contract Administration Data

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.)

The purpose of this amendment is to 1) Extend the solicitation closing date to Wednesday, October 7, 2026 at 4:00PM EST and 2) Correct a typo in Addendum to RFO 52.212-2(F)(3)(a).

Reference to (SF1449 Block 3) is hereby corrected to read (SF1449 Block 6).

All other terms and conditions of this solicitation remain the same.

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)

Christina V. Vargas

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

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

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

21 Sep 2026

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

SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Solicitation/Contract Form

The following modifications were made:

Information From To Response Due Date 23 Sep 2026 07 Oct 2026 Solicitation Number FA448426R00010005 FA448426R00010006

Evaluation Factors for Award

Header Miscellaneous Text (Modified):

Addendum to RFO 52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Products and Commercial Services

A. This is a competitive best value source selection in which Tradeoff procedures IAW RFO 15.103-1 to make an integrated assessment for best value award decision. To arrive at a best value decision, evaluations of the factors described in this provision will be completed. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the best value tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph below. Technical will be F evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price.

B. Email correspondence conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors shall not constitute conducting negotiations per RFO Part 15.105-2. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute negotiations and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. Offeror's may be restricted to a short suspense (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer during any negotiation period if necessary.

C. Rejection of Unreasonable Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, or contract terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

D. Contractor Responsibility: In accordance with RFO 9.1, the Contracting Officer shall award contracts only to responsible vendors. No purchase or award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. At the discretion of the contracting officer, the government may require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor's current sound financial status, as well as the ability to obtain required resources if the need arises. In regard to resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources or personnel. Consideration of a prime contractor's compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be taken into account for the time period covered by the contract base period or quantities, plus option periods or quantities, if such options are considered when evaluating offers for award. Pursuant to RFO 9.104-5, the contracting officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s). In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the contracting officer shall make a determination of non-responsibility.

E. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. All technically acceptable offers will be considered as equal. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with RFO 15.4 and RFO 31.201-3), unbalanced (in accordance with RFO 15.404-6), or unaffordable (not within any budgetary information included in the solicitation) may not be considered for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

FA448426R00010006

F. EVALUATION PROCESS: The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1. . Initially, the government's technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning Technical Acceptability ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following factor:

a. Technical Factor The offeror shall provide a staffing plan to recruit and retain the skill sets - Organizational Staffing and Manning Utilization Plan/Approach:

required of the PWS. Requirement Is met when the offeror provides a written staffing plan to include a staffing chart that describes qualified personnel, recruitment and retention plan considering local market conditions, classroom capabilities and course overlap necessary to meet instructional and administrative requirements of the PWS. Resumes are not to be included.

2. Next, the government shall rank all technically acceptable offers by price, including any option prices if applicable. An offeror's proposed prices will Price Evaluation.

be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each.

a. Complete blocks 17a, 17b, 30a, 30b, and 30c of theSF1449. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the SOLICITATION, with attachments as well assigning/acknowledging any amendments. In doing so, the offeror agrees to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP.

b. Insert proposed unit and extended prices in the Pricing Schedule in the SF 1449. The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units. Prices shall not extend past the second decimal point for unit and extended amounts. The proposed price shall include all personnel, supplies, services, management, overhead, other direct costs, G&A, and profit to fulfill the contractual requirements of PWS and any attachments. The price proposal(s) must be submitted for one (1) 12-month base period plus four (4) 12-month option periods and a six (6) month option to extend IAW RFO 52.217-8.

The government will evaluate the price of any possible extension by dividing the price in the last option period by twelve, multiplying that figure by six, and adding it to the total price of the base and all options. (Optional) Phase-In Period, One (1) Month PoP from 12 Nov 2026 through 11 Dec 2026 is included, if needed, at no cost to the Government.

3. Past Performance Evaluation: The government will then evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance based on the recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance, all which shall be considered. Any effort submitted must be similar in scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity to this effort. These are combined to establish one (1) performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are two (2) aspects to the quality of the past performance evaluation: recency and relevancy. Past performance references and data of either party to a joint venture or teaming arrangement will be considered to apply equally to the joint venture or teaming arrangement.

a. Recency: To be determined recent, performance surveys and performance questionnaires received by the government shall reference projects that have been awarded, completed, or are ongoing within five (5) years from the date of this solicitation (SF 1449 Block 6). Past performance information that does not meet this requirement will not be evaluated.

b. Relevance: Includes performance of efforts involving Fieldcraft Support services as specified in the PWS that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Complexity is defined as the ability to perform and manage several task orders at the same time and successfully perform similar or higher magnitudes than described in the solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror's ability to perform the requirement described in the solicitation based on the offeror's demonstrated past performance. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The relevance ratings in Table 1 below shall be used when assessing offeror's efforts.

Table 1- Past Performance Relevance Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

c. Performance Confidence Assessment: Efforts that are determined recent and relevant will then receive a confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 2 below. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Neutral Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

i. If teaming partners/joint ventures both have prime contractor experience then their past performance rating will be equal to a prime contractor. If the teaming partners/joint ventures have no prime contractor past performance, the past performance will be evaluated less favorably. If a prime contractor submits past performance of a proposed subcontractor, the past performance information will be evaluated less favorably than if submitted for the prime. In the case of offerors for which there is no or limited information on past contract, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offeror's past performance is unknown and a performance confidence rating of "Neutral Confidence" will be assigned. Confidence ratings of Substantial and Satisfactory confidence will be rated more favorably than a "Neutral" confidence rating. As a result of the recency and relevancy assessments, and overall quality of the contracts evaluated, one of the confidence ratings as described below will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if the lowest priced offeror does not receive a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment.

Table 2- Per formance Confidence Assessment

Adjectival Rating Description

Substan tial Conf idence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfac tory Co nfidenc e

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will 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.

Limited Confide nce

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.

ii. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

iii. If the lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offer is judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

iv. If the lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offeror is not judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance assessment or until all technically acceptable offerors are evaluated.

The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

4. Finally, the government's technical evaluation team shall evaluate the Continuation of Essential Contractor Continuation of Essential Contractor Services:

Services Plan in accordance with R-DFARS 252.237-7023, Continuation of Essential Contractor Services and will be assessed on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Pass/ Fail.

a. The written plan must describe in detail how the offeror will continue to provide all required services under all circumstances, ensuring uninterrupted support to DoD missions and responsibilities.

b. Failure to submit this plan will render the proposal nonresponsive.

c. The Government will evaluate the quality and feasibility of the Contractors' Continuation of Essential Contractor Services Plan based on the extent to which it demonstrates the offeror's ability to maintain performance during unforeseen or adverse conditions, including but not limited to: Installation or facility closures, Severe or inclement weather, natural disasters, security incidents, and situations in which the installation is under attack or otherwise compromised.

d. The plan should clearly identify the offeror's strategies, resources, personnel considerations, communication methods, and continuity procedures that ensure essential services remain operational during such events.

5. The government intends to award without discussions with respective offerors. If, during the Evaluation Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPR):

evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to ENs and the FPR will be considered in making the decision. If the offeror's proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror's proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

6. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the addendum to RFO 52.212-1. Offeror's may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.