C9 N4523A25R6004 Beluga RCD Barge Solicitation Amendment 0003.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

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

1. GENERAL:

The Government intends to award a single, firm-fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror (as defined in FAR Part 9.104) on the basis of the lowest evaluated price proposal meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for the below listed factors and sub-factors in accordance with the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process outlined in FAR 15.101-2. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. 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 Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. 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. This section contains specific evaluation factors for award of a contract pursuant to this solicitation.

Offeror proposals shall be in the format prescribed by, and shall contain a response to, each of the submission requirements identified in Section L of this solicitation.

2. BASIS FOR AWARD AND EVALUATION FACTORS

In selecting the LPTA offer the following factors will be considered: (1) technical capabilities, (2) past performance, and (3) price. The Offeror must be determined to have acceptable technical and past performance; that is, selection of the contractor is to be based on the establishment of minimum requirements to be evaluated on an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" basis. Proposals are evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked using the non-price factors.

To be eligible for award, Offerors proposals must be found acceptable in each of the following factors/sub factors:

Factor Sub factor Description Adjectival Rating

1 Technical Capabilities Acceptable /Unacceptable

1.1 Corporate Experience Acceptable /Unacceptable

1.2 Certifications Acceptable /Unacceptable

1.3 Facility Acceptable /Unacceptable

2 Past Performance Acceptable /Unacceptable

A. Factor 1 - Technical Capability

Section I: Subfactor 1.1, Corporate Experience:

N4523A25R60040003

The prospective offeror must demonstrate specific experience providing relevant work of the complexity similar to or exceeding the scope identified in Section 1.2 of the statement of work (SOW) to a vessel of like dimensions or greater as identified in Section 1.1 of SOW, through a narrative of three (3) contracts within the last five (5) years.

Offerors shall provide sufficient explanation that the experience provided demonstrates that the offeror has the necessary management, technical personnel, and material resources available to successfully complete work of the complexity similar to or exceeding the scope identified in Section 1.2 of the SOW, to a vessel of like dimensions or greater as identified in Section 1.1 of SOW.

Section II: Subfactor 1.2, Certifications:

The offeror must provide at least one current certificate that will not expire prior to period of performance start date as designated in Section F of the Solicitation identifying at least one person certified as a paint inspector in accordance with either NAVSEA Basic Paint Inspector (NBPI), NACE International Coatings Inspector or SSPC Protective Coating Inspector programs, or equivalent programs, as required for accomplishing the requirements of the statement of work. The certificate shall be for the designated person/persons whom shall be responsible for all Paint OQE submittals for the duration of this contract.

Section III: Subfactor 1.3, Facility:

The offeror must demonstrate that the facility to be used has adequate lifting and operational capacity to safely dock the vessel in accordance with vessel characteristics indicated in Section 1.1 of the SOW. At the discretion of the Government, an on-site survey may be conducted by the Government Docking Observer (GDO) and may be required to validate the facility's capability.

To facilitate proper government oversight, the facility shall be located in the region. For this procurement, Puget Sound, WA Pacific Northwest the region is defined as the west coast of the continental US, starting from Olympia, WA, extending Puget Sound, WA Pacific Northwest northward to Bellingham, WA. westward to Neah Bay, WA, southward to Portland, OR, and eastward to Washougal, OR.

Once all sub-factors are evaluated, the government shall rate the offeror's proposal for factor 1 using Table M-1 below:

Table M-1_Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305, however a comparative assessment as described in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) will not be conducted IAW FAR 15.101-2(b)(1). The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror's probability of meeting the minimum solicitation requirements based on an assessment of the recency, relevancy, and satisfactory performance of the offeror's past performance. The acceptability of the offeror's past performance will be evaluated on an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" basis as follows:

Subfactor 2: Past Performance

Evidence of successful past performance on one (1) project within the last five (5) years that demonstrates performance relevant to providing work on projects similar in scope to section 1.2 of the statement of work (SOW).

Assessment of past performance will be a subjective assessment based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. The Government is seeking to determine whether the offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction and timely delivery of quality goods and services.

Past performance information obtained from established systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases. Past performance information may also be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials.

Once all past performance criteria are evaluated, the Government shall rate the offeror's proposal for factor 2 using Table M-2 below:

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or "neutral") past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered "acceptable."

Table M-2_Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectiv al Rating

Description

Acceptab le

Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror's performance record is unknown. (See note above)

Unaccept able

Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

B. Factor 3 - Price/Cost Reasonableness

The Government will not evaluate price adjectivally. The Government will analyze the proposed price provided in Section B and attachments J-2 of volume III in accordance with FAR 15.404 using proposal analysis techniques to determine fair and reasonable pricing. The Government may use one or a combination of price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price is received.

Award will be made on the basis of the lowest priced proposal that meets the acceptability standards for all non-price factors and sub-factors, in accordance with FAR 15.101-2. The offeror's total proposed price of contract line item number (CLIN) 0001 found in Section B shall match the sum of all paragraph line items within the Price Breakdown Spreadsheet (respective to individual tabs) found in Attachment J-2. CLIN 0002 is informational only and shall not be priced.

If the Government determines an offeror's estimates to be inexplicably low or otherwise not fair and reasonable, that offeror may be eliminated from the competition without further discussion.

Completion of Section B and the attachment J-2 is REQUIRED to be submitted with your proposal. Failure to submit a price for any line item(s) in the J-2 attachment may result in the offer being rejected as unacceptable.

Labor Rate/Man hour, G&A Rate, Fringe Rate, FCCOM Rate, Overhead Rate, and Profit Rate (Row 7 on Attachment J-2 Price Proposal Worksheets) used to calculate for the overall price of the base contract award shall be the basis of pricing all modifications under this contract.

1400 FARRAGUT AVE, BREMERTON WA 98314-5001

BREMERTON, WA 98314-5001

UNITED STATES

ALICE ROBERTSON, Email: alice.n.robertson.civ@us.navy.mil Telephone: 3608159744 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS:

SCHEDULE: The proposal due date and time remains unchanged at 12:00PM PDT, 10 April 2025.

TERMS: All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.