Solicitation Amendment N4019225R50010004 SF 30_08OCT2025.pdf

R

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 NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Block 14 (Description of Amendment/Modification):

Amendment 0004, RFP N40192-25-R-5001, Environmental Compliance Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Services At Joint Region Marianas (JRM), Guam

AMENDMENT 0004

A. RFP Notice No. 4 revised 08 October 2025 is provided herein as Enclosure (1) in response to requests for information (RFI).

B. RFP Notice No. 5 is provided herein as Enclosure (2) in response to RFIs.

C. RFP Section M.2(3)(b)(1) is revised. Changes are highlighted below; however, revised sections shall be reviewed in its entirety.

D. Offerors shall acknowledge this amendment, and all previous amendments, in Block 14 of the Standard Form 33 with its proposal.

E. All terms and conditions of the solicitation remain unchanged.

N4019225R50010004

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value--the proposal most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

2. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In addition, 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.

3. The tradeoff process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow consideration of award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

4. All technical factors when combined are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating; and all technical factors and the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating, when combined are approximately equal to price.

5. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions. An Unacceptable rating in any of the non-price factors will result in an overall rating of "Unacceptable" for the non-price factors, unless corrected through discussions. Proposals may be found to have either a significant weakness or multiple weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal.

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-price factors:

Factor 1- Experience of the Firm

Factor 2 - Technical and Management Approach

Factor 3 - Safety

Factor 4 - Past Performance

The distinction between experience and past performance is that experience pertains to the volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work described under the definition of recent, relevant projects, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

2. The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is the technical factors (Factors 1, 2, and 3) are of equal importance to each other and, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation /performance confidence assessment factor (Factor 4). When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined (i.e., the non-price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to price.

The importance of price will increase if the Offerors' non-price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if price is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-price proposal's superiority to the Government.

Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

3. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor.

(a) :PRICE

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the price proposal separate from the non-price proposal, and include the following:

(i) Solicitation, Offer, and Award (SF 33) - Offeror is to complete Blocks 14 through 18 on the SF 33 form and Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) 0001 through 0014 in Section B.

(ii) Section J, Exhibits A through F - Offeror shall enter unit prices and amounts for Exhibit Line Item Numbers (ELINs) as indicated in the schedules. OFFERORS MUST MANUALLY ROUND UNIT PRICES

TO THE NEAREST PENNY.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the basic requirements and all option items (see Section B of the solicitation). The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in Section M of the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

(iii) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

In the event there is a difference between a unit price and the extended total amount, the unit price will be held to be the intended offer and the total of the ELINs will be recomputed accordingly. If the Offeror provides a total amount for an ELIN but fails to enter the unit price, the total amount divided by the ELIN quantity will be held to be in the intended unit price.

(b) :NON-PRICE FACTORS

(1) Factor 1, Experience of the Firm

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: In Tab 1 of the non-price proposal, the Offeror shall submit the following information:

(A) Submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) recent and relevant projects that best demonstrate experience on relevant projects that are similar in size (dollar value), scope, and complexity to the Request for Proposal (RFP). Projects are defined as either stand-alone contracts, or individual task orders under an indefinite-delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract. DO NOT submit an IDIQ contract as a project; for work performed under an IDIQ contract, submit only the individual task orders that best demonstrate experience as indicated above. Projects submitted under this factor that do not conform to the solicitation submittal requirements will not be evaluated.

(B) Recent projects are those that have been 100% completed within five (5) years prior to the issuance date of this solicitation.

(C) Relevant projects are those similar in size, scope and complexity anticipated under this contract. For purposes of this solicitation, size, scope and complexity are defined as follows:

Size - The aggregate value of recent projects combined meeting the scope and complexity of this requirement is at least $1,000,000.00.

Scope - Tasks described in Section C, Annex 1800000 Specification Item 3 for recurring work.

Complexity - Depth and diversity of technical experience performing the tasks described in Section C, Annex 1800000 Specification Item 3 for recurring work.

(D) Offerors may include projects performed by key subcontractors. Key subcontractors are those anticipated to perform 25% of the work under this contract. The Government will not consider the experience of a subcontractor unless the prime contractor clearly provides, in its proposal, evidence of a legally binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement which creates legal responsibility on the part of the subcontractor for performance on this contract.

(E) Demonstrated experience: Offerors MUST demonstrate experience in environmental compliance programs including, at minimum, clean air act, safe drinking water act, and clean water act. Experience MUST collectively demonstrate the following elements:

(1) Prepare and develop plans, certifications, and permit applications to include compliance with permit requirements /conditions,

(2) Conduct inspections, studies, surveys, assessments, monitoring, and prepare associated reporting, and

(3) Perform sample collection, testing and laboratory analysis.

(F) Projects shall be submitted on ATTACHMENT JL-2, Project Data Sheet. Each Project Data Sheet SHALL NOT exceed the equivalent of three (3) single-sided pages. The Offeror shall not deviate from the basic format of the form, although blocks may be expanded to allow for additional space, but shall not exceed the page limit per Project Data Sheet.

PROJECTS NOT SUBMITTED ON THE APPROPRATE FORM WILL NOT BE EVALUATED.

(G) Offerors must add page numbers to their Factor 1 proposal beginning with page 1.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

(A) The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror's demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing recent and relevant projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the Offeror's recent, relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror's capability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

The Government will not review any projects above the maximum allowed and will review them in the order presented.

(B) Offerors who demonstrate experience in elements of Section C, Annex 1800000, Specification Item 3 for recurring work, that exceed the specific elements listed in the criteria identified in Factor 1, Experience of the Firm solicitation submittal requirements, may be considered more favorably.

(C) Offerors who demonstrate experience in environmental compliance programs, beyond the minimum requirement (clean air act, safe drinking water act, and clean act), specifically hazardous waste, solid waste management, AND oil waterair and storage tank management in at least one (1) of the elements listed below may be considered more favorably:

(1) Prepare and develop plans, certifications, and permit applications to include compliance with permit requirements /conditions,

(2) Conduct inspections, studies, surveys, assessments, monitoring, and prepare associated reporting, or

(3) Perform sample collection, testing and laboratory analysis.

(D) Offerors who demonstrate the ability to perform tasks in multiple locations may be considered more favorably.

(E) Offerors who demonstrate experience in projects performed directly on federal or local government contracts may be considered more favorably.

(2) Factor 2, Technical and Management Approach

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: In Tab 2 of the non-price proposal, the Offeror shall submit a narrative not to exceed the equivalent of seven (7) single-sided pages using 0.5-inch margins and no less than 10 pitch font, describing each of the topics below, tabbed in the technical proposal, and discussed separately. Pages that exceed the maximum number allowed will be removed prior to evaluation and will not be considered.

(A) Technical Approach: Offerors shall demonstrate understanding of and approach to accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement Section C, Annex 1800000 Specification Item 3 for recurring work.

(B) Phase-In Transition Plan: Describe what will be done to "start-up" for performance of this contract. The Offeror shall include a schedule of key events, personnel actions, identification of key personnel, and their responsibilities which demonstrates an executable plan for having equipment and personnel in place to commence work.

(C) Workforce Management: The offeror shall:

(1) Include a simple organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority of your organization to include key personnel;

(2) Provide a narrative that describes the lines of management authority, supervision, span of control and accountability, including the relationship between overall management (key personnel and on-site), administration, and subcontractors. If subcontractors will not be utilized, affirmatively state so; and

(3) Demonstrate the ability to provide and maintain a qualified workforce. The Offeror shall also demonstrate the ability to manage different workforce and competing priorities at various sites.

(D) Offerors must add page numbers to their Factor 2 proposal beginning with page 1.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the complexity and magnitude of service requirements (Technical Approach), proposes an executable plan for having equipment and personnel in place to commence work (Phase-In Transition Plan), and provides an acceptable management approach with the capability to meet performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement (Workforce Management).

(3) Factor 3, Safety

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: In Tab 3 of the non-price proposal, the Offeror shall submit the following information:

The Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate; and Total Case Rate (TCR) for the specified five (5) Calendar Years (CY), as well as a safety narrative, as described further below. For a partnership or joint venture, the Offeror shall submit separate DART rates and TCR for the specified five (5) CY for each contractor who is part of the partnership/joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. Any fatalities experienced within this 5-year timeframe must be explained in detail, to include root cause and corrective actions.

NOTE: DART and TCR shall not be submitted for subcontractors.

(A) DART Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years' [CY2020, CY2021, CY2022, CY2023, and CY2024] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no DART rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

1. DART cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, and/or restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness.

2. Calculation of DART rate: Multiply the total number of DART cases by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

DART RATE = Number of DART Incidents x 200,000 Total Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

(B) TCR Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years' [CY2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no TCR rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

1. TCR cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.

2. Calculation of TCR rate: Multiply the total number of TCR incidents by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

TCR RATE = Number of TCR Incidents x 200,000 Total Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

(C) Technical Approach to Safety: Submit a narrative that addresses the following:

1. Describe the Offeror' s approach to implementing and executing a Safety Management System (SMS) including Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

2. Describe the evaluation process to be used in selecting potential subcontractors, regardless whether or not you anticipate utilizing subcontractors.

3. Describe the processes of how the Offeror will oversee safety compliance of subcontractors at all levels throughout performance of the contract (to include the Offeror's own in-house workforce), regardless whether or not you anticipate utilizing subcontractors.

4. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall not exceed the equivalent of three (3) single-sided pages, using 0.5-inch margins and no less than 10 pitch font, and must start on a separate page from DART and TCR rates. Information on pages beyond this page limit will not be considered.

(D) Offerors must add page numbers to their Factor 3 proposal beginning with page 1.

(E) The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC's Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The evaluation will collectively consider the DART rate, TCR, Technical Approach to Safety, and other sources of information available to the Government as part of such collective evaluation. The board will evaluate the DART rates and TCR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

(A) DART Rate: The board will evaluate trends over the last five years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends occurring above moderate risk levels require the offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

1. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

2. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

3. An increasing DART rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk (HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

4. This chart correlates the DART rate to the level of risk:

Risk DART Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 1.0 Low Risk From 1.0 to 1.99 Moderate Risk From 2.0 to 2.99 High Risk From 3.0 to 4.0 Extremely High Risk Greater than 4.0

(B) TCR Rate: The board will evaluate trends over the last five years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends occurring above moderate risk levels require the offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

1. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

2. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

3. An increasing TCR rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk (HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

4. This chart correlates the TCR rate to the level of risk:

Risk DART Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 2.49 Low Risk From 2.5 to 3.49 Moderate Risk From 3.5 to 4.49 High Risk From 4.5 to 5.9 Extremely High Risk Greater than 6.0

(C) The Technical Approach to Safety Narrative. To determine the degree to which the Offeror:

1. Describes a viable SMS that addresses elements; such as Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

2. Describes a methodical process of evaluating subcontractor's safety performance in their selection process, regardless whether or not you anticipate utilizing subcontractors.

3. Describes a logical management plan to hold themselves and their subcontractors accountable for adhering to the safety requirements of the contract, regardless, whether or not you anticipate utilizing subcontractors.

4. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall not exceed the equivalent of three (3) single-sided pages, using 0.5-inch margins and no less than 10 pitch font, and must start on a separate page from DART and TCR rates. Information on pages beyond this page limit will not be considered.

(D) The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information.

These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC's Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

(4) Factor 4, Past Performance

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: In Tab 4 of the non-price proposal, SUBMIT A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION FOR ALL PROJECTS SUBMITTED FOR FACTOR 1, EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM ONLY. IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1. Projects considered recent and relevant in Factor 1, will also be considered recent and relevant in Factor 4. Ensure project numbers are in the same numeric order as Factor 1 projects. ADDITIONALLY, OFFERORS MUST SUBMIT ONLY ONE CPARS

OR PPQ PER PROJECT.

IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs shall be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment JL-3), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors shall follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Jerica A. Santos via email at jerica.a.santos.civ@us.navy.mil, Andrew James C. Cortez via email at andrewjames.c.cortez.civ@us.navy.mil and Elaine R. Dell'Isola via email at elaine.r.dellisola.

civ@us.navy.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last three (3) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

Sources of Past Performance Information for evaluation that may be used are as follows:

Past performance information provided by the offeror;

Past performance information obtained from questionnaires for this acquisition; and Past performance information obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests solely with the Offeror.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering:

A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.); and Recency of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand.

M.4 COMPETITIVE RANGE

The Government intends to evaluate all proposals received and to award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the Offerors initial proposal shall contain the Offerors best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, if discussions are deemed necessary to maximize the Government's ability to obtain the best value, discussions will be held with those Offerors within a competitive range. The Government 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.

M.5 ENFORCEABILITY PROPOSAL

The proposal must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of the contract. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (e.g., key personnel, subcontractors, materials, etc.)

will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions will require prior Contracting Officer's approval and shall be equal or better, in the judgment of the Contracting Officer, than the items originally proposed.

M.6 FINAL SELECTION

Final selection will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering price and non-price evaluation factors.

PSC 455 BOX 195, FPO AP 96540-2937

FPO, AP 96540-2937

UNITED STATES

JERICA SANTOS, Email: jerica.a.santos.civ@us.navy.mil Telephone: 6713395063 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS: