2.03 Solicitation Amend 0001.pdf

38CJ212302A01

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Name of Ship: USS Preble (DDG-88) The purpose of this amendment is to make changes stated in Block 14 continuation page.

Please see the continuation page for details.

All other terms and conditions remian unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-May-2025

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X N6264925RA049

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

27-May-2025

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer 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 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram 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 telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter 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 NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, 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.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

28-May-2025

CODE

NAVSUP FLC YOKOSUKA

(CODE 200)

CONTRACTING DEPARTMENT

PSC 473 BOX 11

FPO AP 96349-0011

N62649 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6264925RA049

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1.0 GENERAL

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Single award contract. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15 “Contracting by Negotiation” utilizing lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process identified in FAR 15.101-2. LPTA is a process used in competitive negotiated contracting where the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. Best value as defined in FAR 2.101, means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

M-2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will evaluate offers on a LPTA basis in accordance with FAR 15.101-2. Price has a dominant role in source selection and technical tradeoffs will not be made. As such, no additional credit will be given for exceeding the minimum requirements. Proposals are evaluated simply as either acceptable or unacceptable.

To be eligible for award, the Offeror shall meet the following criteria:

Offer a total evaluated price determined to be fair and reasonable by the Contracting Officer;

Obtain a technical acceptability rating of “Acceptable”;

Obtain a past performance acceptability rating of “Acceptable”; and Be determined responsible under FAR 9.104.

All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal will be based on the presented information in the written proposal along with any data obtained from outside sources as it relates to past performance. An offer that is rated as “Unacceptable” in either past performance or technical acceptability may be deemed to be an indication of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the proposed work, and may therefore render an Offeror’s proposal to be unacceptable or ineligible for award.

The Government intends to award without discussions with Offerors, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Therefore, Offerors are encouraged to submit their best offer from a price standpoint.

M-3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors listed below in no particular order of importance. Proposals are evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked using the non-price factors. In order to be considered awardable, an “Acceptable” rating in every non-price factor must be achieved.

Evaluation factors for award:

Factor 1 – Price, Lowest total price Factor 2 – Technical Acceptability (Non-price factor) Factor 3 – Past performance (Non-price factor)

Determination of responsibility is not an evaluation factor, however, an Offeror’s financial profile may be assessed to forecast possible risk and to ensure prospective contractors have adequate financial resources to perform the contract or ability to obtain them [see FAR 9.104-1(a)]. In addition, an Offeror must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) at https://www.sam.gov. Determination of Contractor Responsibility or Non-Responsibility will be assessed using the information available in SAM.gov and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information (FAPIIS). The Offeror must be determined responsible within the definition of FAR 9.104 “Standards” to be eligible for award. Additionally, as indicated in Section L-3.0 paragraph E, the Government will confirm that Offerors outside Japan have the ability to operate and do business in Japan as prescribed under DFARS clause 252.225-7042. Offerors who do not provide proof of authorization to do business in Japan will be determined non-responsible and will not be eligible to receive an award.

Factor 1 – PRICE; LOWEST TOTAL PRICE

The Government will not evaluate price adjectivally or assign strengths or weaknesses to the price proposal. The Government will analyze the total evaluated price in accordance with FAR 15.404 “Proposal analysis”, to determine fair and reasonable pricing. A price reasonableness determination will be made on the total evaluated price utilizing the proposal analysis techniques delineated in the FAR 15.404-1 as deemed appropriate. If the Government determines that adequate price competition was not obtained and/or if the total evaluated price cannot be deemed fair and reasonable, the Government reserves the right to request cost or pricing data.

Factor 2 – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

The term “technical”, as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. This will be evaluated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis.

Technical acceptability will be determined by evaluating the total number of proposed labor hours (prime and subcontractor) and proposed material and other costs. The technical acceptability will be rated as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable”. To be determined technically acceptable, the number of labor hours and material and other costs proposed by the offeror must be sufficient to reflect an understanding of, and ability to complete, the scope of work.

WARNING – If the Government determines that an offeror’s proposal is technically unacceptable because the proposed number of labor hours or the proposed material or other costs are too high or low, the Government may exclude the proposal from further consideration for award.

The Government will evaluate the proposal against the technical requirements using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table M-1.

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.

The type of work that comprises ship repair, and the conditions under which it is performed, require that contracting is limited to companies or firms that are fully capable of conducting all aspects of shipboard work or boat/craft repair. Master Ship Repair Agreement (MSRA) holders are previously determined to possess the facilities, management, organization and production capabilities to perform an entire complex repair and alteration package.

On the other hand, Agreement for Boat Repair (ABR) holders are firms who have demonstrated managerial capabilities to schedule and to control boat/craft repairs.

To ensure the US Navy receives satisfactory repair effort to Navy ships, boats and crafts, this solicitation have a positive qualification requirement for an Offeror to possess a current and active USN MSRA or ABR issued by NAVSUP FLCY. As indicated in Section L-3.0 paragraph E, the Government will confirm the Offeror’s existing MSRA/ABR certification or its plan to become an MSRA/ABR holder. The Government will evaluate the planned approach to obtain an MSRA/ABR or confirm the Offeror's existing MSRA/ABR certification. Any Offeror who do not possess an active MSRA or ABR, or does not agree to execute a master agreement (MSRA/ABR) before award of a job order, will be rated as technically unacceptable and not eligible to receive an award.

Factor 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Evaluation of each offeror’s past performance will be based on information in the Government’s possession, information submitted by the offeror in accordance with Section L-3.0 of the solicitation, and useful and relevant information from other sources. Information related to performance under contracts with the following agencies (listed in order of importance) within the past three years will be evaluated:

(1) U.S. Government agencies;

(2) Government of Japan agencies, including JMSDF/other host nation government if performed in country other than Japan; and

(3) Private Sector.

Evaluation of past performance would NOT be solely used to determine offeror’s responsibility or non-responsibility. The Government will not discriminate against a newly started business concern, or one lacking previous Government performance experience. If the government has no performance record on an offeror, this fact alone shall not be grounds for exclusion from award.

The Government will focus its inquiry of the offeror’s record of timeliness, quality, cost control, and customer satisfaction.

An “unacceptable” rating will be given to the offeror who is or within the past three (3) years has been seriously deficient in contact performance, unless the contracting officer determines that the circumstances were properly beyond the offeror’s control or that the offeror took appropriate corrective action. Seriously deficient denotes a situation where performance did not meet some material contractual requirement.

Evaluation of past performance may include, but not be limited to, relevance and extent of previous contracts, quality of services, timeliness of performance, and management. Past performance information (PPI) utilized in the evaluation will include data obtained from the Contractor performance data sheets. Contractor references that cannot be contacted will not be considered. Government evaluators may avail themselves of various federal, state, and local past performance databases including, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS), and Defense Logistic Agency’s (DLA’s) Mechanization of Contract Administration Services (MOCAS) system. The Government may research offeror performance on any federal, state, local, and commercial contract that is known to the Government, but not included on a submitted “Contractor Data Sheet.” Additionally, interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and the Defense Contract Management Agency may be utilized.

The following rating scale shown in Table M-2 will be used for the proposal’s overall past performance rating:

Table M-2. Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable 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 below.)

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

An Offeror who receives an overall rating of “unacceptable” will not be further considered for award and will be excluded from the competitive range.

In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), 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. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/ unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.

M-4.0 SOURCE SELECTION

The source selection will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Navy Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NMCARS), NAVSUP Contracts Handbook, internal NAVSUP guidance and procedures as well as any other applicable regulation or policy. These policy and regulations provide for checks and balance, and independent evaluation of proposals to ensure integrity is maintained throughout the process. Offerors are encouraged to consult the regulations and guidance online.

The Government intends to make an award to the responsible offeror, with acceptable past performance, who submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, offering the lowest evaluated price.

The Government intends to make an award based on initial proposals; however, the Government reserves the right to enter into discussions. If discussions are applicable, all Offerors selected to participate in discussions shall be advised of deficiencies or significant weaknesses that have been identified during the evaluation, and shall be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision (FPR). The evaluation criteria set forth under Section M, shall still be the basis for evaluation of the FPRs.

(End of Summary of Changes)

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

To correct Factor 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE in Section M (Page 60).

FROM:

"The Government will consider the following three (3) subfactors when evaluating an offeror's past performance.

(1) Quality of Service (technical compliance with contract requirements);

(2) Timeliness of performance (ability to meet schedule); and

(3) Management (offeror's general businesslike concern for the interest of the customer)."

TO:

"The Government will focus its inquiry of the offeror's record of timeliness, quality, cost control, and customer satisfaction."