N6264926RA0360001 SF30.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 B - Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs

The following CLIN(s) / SLIN(s) / ELIN(s) were modified:

INFORMATION FROM TO

Description

USS RAFAEL PERALTA (DDG-115) Growth Work CLIN The contractor shall accomplish authorized in-scope Growth Work in support of USS RAFAEL PERALTA FY26 SIA BUNDLE#1 requirements. This Growth Work CLIN amount represents 8.84 percent of the total proposed cost for CLIN 0001.Below is the Contract Price in United States Dollar (USD):CLIN 0002: ________________ USDNote - The award will be made in Japanese Yen (JPY). The USD amounts shown are for funding purpose only. FY26 Budget Exchange Rate of JPY 150.4415 per USD 1.00 applies.

USS RAFAEL PERALTA (DDG-115) Growth Work CLIN The contractor shall accomplish authorized in-scope Growth Work in support of USS RAFAEL PERALTA FY26 SIA BUNDLE#1 requirements. This Growth Work CLIN amount represents 9.45 percent of the total proposed cost for CLIN 0001.Below is the Contract Price in United States Dollar (USD):CLIN 0002: ________________ USDNote - The award will be made in Japanese Yen (JPY). The USD amounts shown are for funding purpose only. FY26 Budget Exchange Rate of JPY 150.4415 per USD 1.00 applies.

N6264926RA0360001

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

L-1.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

The Task Group Instructions (TGIs), drawings and references will be provided via the Government's Department of Defense (DoD) Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) web-based file transfer service. DoD SAFE is a secure Government repository which enables the sharing of large files which cannot be transmitted via email. The full user guide for DoD SAFE can be found in the following URL ( ). https://safe.apps.mil/help/dod-safe-help.xml Any offeror intending to provide a proposal to this solicitation shall request access by sending an email to the following personnel serving as the point of contact for this procurement:

Points of Contact (POC):

Ai Gillard ( ), Contracting Officerai.gillard.ln@us.navy.mil Miwa Takahashi ( ) Contract Specialistmiwa.takahashi2.ln@us.navy.mil

The Offeror shall certify that they currently hold an active U.S. Navy MSRA/ABR Agreement, or expect to complete the MSRA/ABR certification process prior to the projected contract award date, in order for their offer to be considered. Non MSRA/ABR holders may request an application for an MSRA or an ABR certification by requesting an application package from: . Please note that the MSRA/ABR flcy_msra_abr_group@us.navy.mil Certification process may require a year to complete.

The following are the general instructions:

A. The Offeror must respond to all requirements of the solicitation and not alter or rearrange the solicitation. The Offeror is advised that the Government may incorporate any portions of the Offeror's proposal into the resulting contract.

B. Questions: Offerors may submit questions in writing via email to the following points of contact listed above. All questions shall be submitted using Attachment (III) Request for Information (RFI) provided with this solicitation. Questions shall be submitted no later than 27 Apr 2026 08;00 AM Japan Standard Time (JST), to ensure the Government is able to adequately address and respond to questions submitted.

C. Proposal Validity: Offerors shall fill in block 12 in front page of Standard Form 33 (SF 33) with 90 days. If an offeror fails to fill in block 12, the proposal will be presumed to be valid for 90 days.

D. Amendments: The Government may revise the solicitation at any time by means of an Amendment. Any solicitation amendments and all related documents will be released electronically via email.

E. Subcontracting: Offerors are reminded of the requirements associated with subcontracting with contractors that are debarred, suspended or proposed for debarment contained at FAR 52.209-6. As with all FAR requirements, please ensure you are familiar with those requirements prior to submitting your proposal.

F. Only One Offer: In accordance with DFARS 215.371, if a single offer is received, at the Contracting Officer's discretion, certified cost or pricing data may be required to be submitted subsequent to proposal receipt.

G. If any Long Lead Time Material (LLTM) is identified by the offeror during this period, the offeror shall notify the Government through an RFI.

H. Offerors shall include all anticipated testing work/T-Phase, to include testing work for anticipated standard interference work in your proposal.

I. The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, offerors are encouraged to submit their best offer from a price standpoint.

J. Ship Check: To schedule a ship check, offerors shall email a request for a ship check to the POC listed above. Participants will be provided additional information to the ship check and will be subject to security, safety, and other applicable regulations established by CFAY Naval base, SRF-JRMC, and the Commanding Officer of the Ship.

K. In accordance with DFARS Clause 252.246-7006 and DFARS PGI 246-710-70, Offerors will be required to complete and submit Attachment (V) listed in Section J as part of their proposal package and Attachment (VI) shall be completed no later than when the warranted items are presented for receipt and/or acceptance.

L. Growth CLIN: The price for CLIN 0002, Growth Work will be derived from the proposed price for CLIN 0001 in accordance with the formula contained in Attachment II Proposal Breakdown Form. The average of the labor rate the successful offeror provides in the Price Proposal Breakdown Sheet will be inserted into H-Clause: Growth CLIN paragraph (e)(1) upon contract award as the fully loaded ship repair labor rate and will be utilized for the purpose of calculating total level of effort to completion under the negotiated Growth Work during the entirety of the contract. The average will be determined by dividing the sum of the total labor costs all CLIN by sum of the total man hours across all CLIN. Additionally, the estimated man-hours and material costs will be inserted into H-Clause: Growth CLIN paragraph (a) upon contract award. These amounts will be based upon the successful offeror's proposal in the Attachment (II) Proposal Breakdown Form, CLIN 0002.

L-2.0 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

A. Proposal Due Date: All copies of proposals shall be received by the Government no later than the date specified in SF33 block 9 (Front Page) of the Solicitation. Late proposals WILL NOT be considered. Partial proposals or attachments submitted late WILL NOT be considered. Offerors are advised to consult FAR 15.208 related to timely receipt of proposal.

B. Electronic Submission: Offerors are instructed to submit their proposal electronically via email to the personnel serving as POC for this procurement. Other submission methods WILL NOT be accepted. In the event that it is impossible to submit the proposal via email due to file size limitations, offerors are instructed to request a drop-off from the POC and submit the proposal via DoD SAFE.

C. Proposal Format: For electronic copies, the files shall be in the format that is compatible with and capable of being opened with Microsoft Office Suite 2016 or Adobe Acrobat Reader 2017. The entire content of the proposal shall be in English. If any required document is written in a language other than English (e.g. Japanese), the offerer shall make effort to provide an English translation.

L-3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT

The offeror is required to submit the following:

A. Solicitation (SF 33): The Offeror shall submit one copy of the completed SF33 with blocks 12 through 18 completed as well as all sections (e.g.

Section K) with applicable fill-ins. Submission of a signed offer to the Government constitutes agreement and acceptance of the solicited terms and conditions.

B. Solicitation Amendment (SF 30): If applicable, the Offeror shall submit one copy of all acknowledged SF30 by completing and signing block 15.

C. : The Technical Proposal shall not contain any pricing information. The purpose of the Technical Proposal is to TECHNICAL PROPOSAL provide the information necessary for the Government to evaluate the proposal's technical acceptability based on the factors outlined in Section M-3.

The Technical Proposal shall be organized into the following subfactors:

Subfactor A - Labor Hours: Offerors shall provide a detailed breakdown of the total labor hours proposed to accomplish the work described in the solicitation. This breakdown should be detailed enough to demonstrate a realistic and complete understanding of the work required. The breakdown should clearly identify the labor hours by trade/labor category for each major work item or task. The Offeror shall provide their proposed labor hours for both prime and subcontractor and proposed material and others in ATTACHMENT (2) of Section J (Price Proposal Form).

Subfactor B - MSRA/ABR Certification: Offerors who do not possess a current NAVSUP FLCY MSRA/ABR Agreement will be required to submit a copy of an approved/active U.S. Navy MSRA/ABR Agreement as a Prime Contractor as part of the proposal package.

D. PRICE PROPOSAL:

a. The Price Proposal shall be separated from all other volumes. The Price Proposal shall contain all pricing information required by the solicitation.

b. Offerors shall submit the fully completed price proposal utilizing Attachment (II) "Proposal Breakdown Form" of Section J. Offerors shall also submit vendor quote's associated with Attachment (II). The total proposed price shall represent the Offeror's complete price for all work required.

E. : PAST PERFORMANCE (PPI)

a. The Past Performance Proposal shall not contain any pricing information. Offerors shall submit information on up to three (3) recent and relevant contracts performed within the last three (3) years. Recency is defined as work performed or completed within three years prior to the date of solicitation issuance.

b. The offeror should provide Past Performance Information (PPI) "Contract Data Sheet(s)" (utilizing Attachment (VIII)) on no more than three (3) of the offeror's most recently completed contracts with the U.S. Government, Government of Japan (including Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Forces (JMSDF)/other host nation governments if performed in country other than Japan), and/or the general public not to exceed three (3) years since completion for like or similar services to those to be provided under this solicitation. If the offeror is unable to provide three (3) relevant contracts for past performance evaluation, a lesser number may be submitted. Failure to submit Contract Data Sheet(s) shall be considered a certification that the Contractor has no past performance for like or similar items for the Government to evaluate; however, this does not preclude the Government from considering and evaluating past performance records and information in its possession for work it determines to be relevant.

c. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the Offeror shall affirmatively state that no such record exists. An Offeror with no relevant past performance will receive a rating of "Unknown Confidence" and will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on this factor.

d. This solicitation is intended only for sources duly authorized to operate and do business in Japan, prescribed by DFARS 252.225-7042. Contractors outside Japan must submit documentation that unambiguously demonstrates the Offeror's compliance with DFARS 252.225-7042 (e.g., proof of incorporation) as part of their proposal.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

M-1.0 GENERAL

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Single award contract. Proposals will be evaluated using the Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection process in accordance with FAR 15.103-1 and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures. The Government will award a contract to the Offeror responsible whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to offer the best value to the Government. Under the PPT process, the Government will evaluate proposals for technical acceptability. For all proposals found to be technically acceptable, a trade-off will then be performed between past performance and price.

The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is determined to be in the Government's best interest. Offerors are encouraged to submit their best terms from both a technical and price standpoint in their initial proposal.

M-2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

The following factors will be used to evaluate proposal(s):

Factor 1 - Technical (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Subfactor A - Labor Hours Subfactor B - MSRA/ABR Certification

Factor 2 - Past Performance

Factor 3 - Price

The Technical factor will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis, resulting in a rating of either "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable". For these technically acceptable proposals, a trade-off will be performed between Past Performance and Price. Past Performance is considered significantly more important than Price. As the past performance ratings of proposals become more equal, the importance of price as a determining factor will increase.

Determination of responsibility is not an evaluation factor, however, an Offeror's financial profile may be assessed to forecast possible risk and to ensure all awardee 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. 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 F, 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.

M- 2.1 Factor 1 - TECHNICAL

To be considered for award, a proposal must be rated "Acceptable" for the Technical factor. A proposal will be rated "Acceptable" if it demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements and proposes a sound, achievable approach that meets all minimum requirements outlined in the solicitation.

A proposal will be rated "Unacceptable" if it fails to meet these minimum requirements, contains significant omissions, or presents an approach that poses a high risk of unsuccessful performance.

The evaluation will assess the following subfactors to determine overall technical acceptability:

The Government will evaluate the proposed labor hours for both prime and subcontractor and proposed quantities of Subfactor A: Labor Hour:

materials to ensure they are realistic for the work required and reflect a clear understanding of the scope and complexity of the requirement without introducing unacceptable risk.

MSRA/ABR Certification: The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror possesses a current and active USN MSRA or ABR Subfactor B:

issued by the U.S. Navy or NAVSUP FLCY. Any Offeror who do not possess an active MSRA or ABR, will be rated as technically unacceptable.

A proposal must be rated "Acceptable" in all subfactors to receive an overall "Acceptable" rating for the Technical factor. Failure to receive an "Acceptable" rating will render the proposal ineligible for award.

M-2.2 Factor 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

For proposal(s) rated "Acceptable" under the Technical factor, the past performance evaluation will assess the Government's confidence in the Offeror's ability to successfully perform the required effort based on a review of their recent and relevant performance history. The Government will evaluate the recency and relevancy of the performance information, the context of the data, and quality (including general trends in the contractor's performance and source of information). These shall be combined to establish a performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. This is not a mechanical scoring of past performance references but a subjective assessment based on a review of the Offeror's recent and relevant performance history.

To develop the overall performance confidence assessment rating, the Government's evaluation will take into account relevant 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 available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) referred to as Responsibility/ Qualification (R/Q) data in SAM.

gov, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

A. Past Performance Evaluation Process

The evaluation will proceed in two steps. First, the Government will assess the relevancy of the Offeror's past performance information. Second, the Government will assess the quality of that performance to assign an overall confidence rating. The Government will conduct a comprehensive review of performance information on contracts submitted by the Offeror and data independently obtained by the Government.

(1) Relevancy Assessment

Relevant past performance is performance under contracts accomplished within the past three (3) years that is of the same or similar scope, complexity, and magnitude to that which is described in the solicitation. The Government will assign one relevancy rating for each past performance effort using the four levels of relevancy as shown in Table M-1.

Table M-1. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

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.

With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance 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. Performance under contracts with the U.S. Government agencies will be given more weight than performance under contracts with the Government of Japan agencies (including JMSDF/other host nation government if performed in country other than Japan) and private sector.

(2) Quality of Performance Assessment

After assessing relevancy, the Government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror's performance on recent and relevant contracts. This quality assessment will consider performance ratings from sources like CPARS (e.g., Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory) and the narrative detail provided in those reports. The evaluation will focus on the Offeror's record of conforming to contract requirements and standards of good workmanship, adhering to schedules, and demonstrating effective management. The integrated assessment of performance quality on relevant contracts will lead to the final performance confidence rating.

A trend of "Exceptional" or "Very Good" performance ratings on contracts rated as "Very Relevant" or "Relevant" is likely to result in a "Substantial Confidence" rating.

A trend of "Satisfactory" performance ratings on "Relevant" contracts is likely to result in a "Satisfactory Confidence" rating.

A trend of "Marginal" performance ratings on "Relevant" contracts, or a record with significant performance issues (even if Satisfactory overall), may result in a "Limited Confidence" rating.

A recent or relevant performance record with "Unsatisfactory" ratings or a significant number of performance problems for which effective corrective actions were not demonstrated is likely to result in a "No Confidence" rating.

More weight will be given to more relevant contracts. In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.202(c)(1)]. In this case, the offeror's past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of "Neutral Confidence".

B. Performance Confidence Ratings

Based on the integrated assessment of relevancy and performance quality as described above, one of the following confidence ratings in Table M-2 will be assigned. This rating will become the Offeror's overall rating for Past Performance.

Table M-2. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

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.

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 Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will be able to 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.

Factor 3 - PRICE

For all proposals rated "Acceptable" under the Technical factor, the proposed price will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness. For completeness evaluation purposes, the Government will verify that the Offeror has provided all information as required under Section L and submitted the price proposal breakdown form as required in Section B of the solicitation.

The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by adding the proposed price for all CLIN(s) which will determine the total evaluated price. The Government will analyze the total evaluated price in accordance with FAR 15.404 "Cost and/or price 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 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.

M-4.0 SOURCE SELECTION

The source selection will be conducted in accordance with the Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Revolutionary FAR Overhaul Class Deviations, 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 award a single contract to the responsible Offeror that provides the best value to the Government. The award decision will be based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described above. To be eligible for award, an Offeror's proposal must first be rated "Acceptable" under the Technical Factor. For all technically acceptable proposals, the Government will then conduct a price/past performance tradeoff. The Government may award to a higher-priced offeror if their superior past performance record is determined to be worth the additional price. Conversely, the Government may award to an offeror with a lower past performance rating if the price difference is significant enough to offset any perceived performance risk. The final award decision will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

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.

PSC 473 BOX 11, FPO AP 96349-1500

FPO, AP 96349-1500

UNITED STATES

Miwa Takahashi, Email: miwa.takahashi2.ln@us.navy.mil Telephone: 315-243-7623 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS: