Solicitation Amendment N6264926RL0170001 SF 30.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):

Vessel: USNS CITY OF BISMARCK (T-EPF 9) Specification: SSU SN 27-001 MTA 27

The purpose of this amendment is as follows:

1) Section M - revise the paragraphs under M-3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS, 1) PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR - Lowest Total Price; and

2) Extend closing date/time for this solicitation to 11 Aug 2026, 1000 hrs (Singapore time).

Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form

The following changes have been made:

INFORMATION FROM TO

Response Due Time 03:00 PM 10:00 AM Response Due Date 30 Jul 2026 11 Aug 2026

N6264926RL0170001

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

M-1.0 GENERAL

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal offers the lowest evaluated price and for which non-price factor is rated as Acceptable in accordance with the established criteria in the solicitation. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Taking exception to any terms or conditions of this RFP outside of the process for Clarifications and Deviations may deem the offeror unacceptable.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award based on initial proposals without conducting negotiations with Offerors but reserves the right to conduct negotiations if determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary (FAR 52.215-1(f)(4)). Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror's best technical and price terms. If negotiation is decided, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range to limit the number of proposals for negotiation to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

The Contracting Officer will promptly notify offerors of the decision to eliminate their proposals from the competitive range, whereupon an offeror can request and receive a debriefing in accordance with RFO 15.206. The Contracting Officer will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with RFO 15.301. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Any offeror requesting a debriefing must make the request in accordance with the requirements of RFO 15.301.

Offerors are advised that the Government will not evaluate any proposal information not contained within the body of the proposal, with the exception of the Government's reservation of rights to independently research past performance.

M-2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

Evaluation of an Offeror's proposal will be based on the information presented in the written proposal along with any input obtained from outside sources relevant to past performance. Proposals that are unachievable in terms of technical or schedule commitments may be deemed to be reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed work, and may therefore be determined to be unacceptable or ineligible for award.

All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L will impact the resulting evaluation ratings and a deficiency or lack of responses to factors, sub-factors, elements, or sub-elements may be used as a basis for eliminating a proposal from further consideration.

For the Technical factor, a Technical Rating will be assigned. The Technical Rating reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an "Unacceptable" Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate recent performance to determine how well an offeror has performed work similar to the work required by the solicitation. After evaluating the Offeror's past performance information, a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be assigned. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating than past performance of lesser relevance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the Offeror will be determined to have an "Unknown Performance Record" which is considered an acceptable rating.

M-3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

1) PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR - Lowest Total Price

The offeror's proposed price will be evaluated for reasonableness based on price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, using the information contained in Attachment J-3 (Contractor Price Sheet). Award will be made based on an Offeror's Total Evaluated Price, a price proposal that is found UNREASONABLE and/or UNBALANCE may be rejected. Reasonableness will be determined based on proposals submitted in accordance with FAR 15.404. As stated in RFO 15.404-6, unbalance pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more CLIN or work item pricing is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government may reject an offer if the Contracting Officer determined that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The Government will review the Offeror's CLIN and work item prices to identify any significant disparity that may indicate a lack of understanding of contract requirements.

Total Evaluated Price shall be calculated by adding the total price for all base, options, and Time and Material CLINs. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Pricing for Time and Material CLINs shall be calculated by adding the price of Time CLIN and price of Material CLIN. Price for each CLIN is calculated in the following manner:

- Time CLIN: Multiply the proposed fully burdened labor rate by the number of hours provided by the Government to yield the total price for Time

CLIN.

- Material CLIN: Multiply the proposed material handling fee by the material dollar value provided by the Government to yield the total price for

N6264926RL0170001

Doris.Bay.SN Highlight

Material CLIN.

2) NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR - Technical

TECHNICAL FACTOR 1 - UNDERSTANDING THE WORK ITEM (WI) PACKAGE

The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the offeror's understanding of approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the information provided as required by Section L under the following sub-factors.

1.1 TPSN

1.2 Problem Areas

1.3 Engineering

1.4 Material Availability

1.5 Material Control and Storage

1.6 Heavy Weather Plans

1.7 Cold Weather Plan

1.8 Fire and Flooding Protection Plans

1.9 Aluminum Welding Requirement

TECHNICAL FACTOR 2 - ABILITY TO PERFORM THE WI PACKAGE

The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the offeror's understanding of approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the information provided as required by Section L under the following sub-factors.

2.1 Man-hour Chart

2.2 Growth Absorption

2.3 Facilities

2.4 Berth, Approach, and Mooring

TECHNICAL FACTOR 3 - MANAGEMENT CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the offeror's understanding of approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the information provided as required by Section L under the following sub-factors.

3.1 Organization and Key Personnel

3.2 Subcontractor Participation

3.3 Quality Control Plan

3.4 Hazardous Waste Management Plan

The Government will evaluate the offeror's proposal against the requirements to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable using the ratings and descriptions below.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3) NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR - Past Performance

A. Evaluation

1. The Government will evaluate each offeror's past performance based on the information submitted by the offeror, but, at the Government's discretion, may also consider information in the Government's possession and information from other sources. Only recent and relevant past performance information will be evaluated. A recent contract is one that is currently ongoing or has been completed within the last five (5) years from the solicitation release date. A relevant contract is defined as work of similar scope and magnitude performed on US Navy vessels, other government military vessels, or similar commercial vessels where the offeror served as the prime contractor. If an Offeror submits more than three recent and relevant efforts, the Government will evaluate no more than three (3), which will be selected based on relevancy.

N6264926RL0170001

Doris.Bay.SN Highlight

2. If Offerors that have no record of past performance (i.e., new businesses) submit a statement to that effect and the Government has no information available regarding the offeror's past performance, that offeror will be determined to have an unknown performance record. In the case of an Offeror for whom information on recent, relevant past performance is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be determined to have an unknown performance record. An unknown performance record will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, unknown past performance shall be considered acceptable.

3. The Government will consider quality information in the following areas when evaluating an offeror's recent and relevant past performance.

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

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

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

4. Quality information regarding the Offeror's recent and relevant past performance will be used to make a subjective determination whether the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. IAW RFO 15.202 (c), the government may consider, among other things, currency and relevance of the quality information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance.

5. Past Performance Information (PPI) utilized in the evaluation will include data obtained from the Past Performance Data Sheets (Attachment J-4).

Contractor references that cannot be contacted will not be considered. Government evaluators may use various federal, state, and local past performance databases including, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Responsibility/Qualification in SAM.GOV, Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS), and Defense Logistic Agency's (DLA's) Mechanization of Contract Administration Services (MOCAS) system. The Government may research offeror's performance on any federal, state, local, and commercial contract that is known to the Government, but not included on a submitted "Past Performance Data Sheet." Additionally, interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and the Defense Contract Management Agency may be utilized.

RATING

The Past Performance factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis using the following rating criteria:

Ratin g

Description

Accep table

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.

Unacc eptabl e

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.

An offeror who receives a rating of "Unacceptable" based on adverse past performance information to which the offeror has had an opportunity to respond will not be further considered for award.

4) COVER PAGE AND OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

Responsibility: To be eligible for award, Offerors must meet the Contractor Qualifications standards in FAR subpart 9.1, and shall provide relevant documentation necessary to support the Contracting Officer's determination of responsibility. The Contracting Officer may request additional documentation necessary to determine an Offeror's responsibility pursuant to FAR 9.105-1(a). Such a request shall not be considered "discussions."

The Contracting Officer may either make a responsibility determination without requesting any information from an offeror or require the offeror provide information to substantiate that it satisfies the general responsibility standards of FAR 9.104-1. The particular information requested from an offeror will be specific to that offeror. The Contracting Officer may consider an offeror's inability to promptly respond to a request for information as an indication the offeror is nonresponsible since FAR 9.103(c) obligates prospective contractors to affirmatively demonstrate their responsibility.

When the Contracting Officer requests responsibility information, the Contracting Officers request, the offeror's response, and all related communications between the government and offeror are solely for the purpose of determining whether the offeror is responsible. These communications will not constitute negotiations within the meaning of RFO 15.204 since the offeror will not be given an opportunity to revise its proposal.

IMPORTANT:

1. In the event the country in which the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror's shipyard is located prohibits U.S. personnel from entering the country at the time of award or 45 calendar days before commencement of period of performance whichever is sooner, the U.S. Government reserves the right to award to the lowest price, technically acceptable offeror whose country does not prohibit U.S. personnel entry.

2. The offeror's proposed port facility must have an active port assessment completed by the U.S. Navy in order to be eligible for award. In the event the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror's proposed port does not have an active port assessment at the time of award or 45 calendar days before commencement of period of performance, whichever is sooner, the U.S. Government reserves the right to award to the lowest price, technically acceptable offeror whose proposed port has an active port assessment.

3. Verification of Accounting Systems To support the Government's responsibility determination, the Government may require a pre-award survey of an offeror's accounting system.

Offerors must be prepared to support various requests from Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) for verification of an accounting system adequate to support Time and Materials CLIN as stated in this solicitation, for determining costs applicable to this contract in accordance with DFARS Subpart 242.75. Offerors must be prepared to support this survey by providing access to relevant documentation (e.g., timekeeping policies, labor distribution procedures, billing procedures) and key financial personnel.

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 based on initial proposals; however, the Government reserves the right to enter into negotiations. If discussions are applicable, all Offerors selected to participate in negotiations 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.

Pre-award notification during the source selection process shall be provided IAW RFO 15.106.

PSC 473 BOX 11, FPO AP 96349-1500

FPO, AP 96349-1500

UNITED STATES

Siew Kim Doris Bay, Email: siewkimdoris.bay.ln@us.navy.mil Telephone: 6567502838 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS: