N6449825R40500001.pdf

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

The purpose of this Amendment is to update the Factor 1 table in Section M and add clauses 52.212-5 Alt II and 52.244-6_ Deviation. All other terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Apr-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 N6449825R4050

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-Mar-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 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

08-Apr-2025

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER PHILA

CODE 0231, VALERIE CORCORAN

VALERIE.A.CORCORAN.CIV@US.NAVY.MIL

5001 SOUTH BROAD STREET

PHILADELPHIA PA 19112

N64498 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6449825R4050

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

52.212-5 Alt II Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement

Statutes or Executive Orders--Commercial Products and

Commercial Services (JAN 2025) Alternate II

JAN 2025

52.244-6 (Dev) Subcontracts for Commercial Products and Commercial

Services (DEVIATION 2025-O0003)

MAR 2025

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

M.1. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will utilize the subjective Tradeoff source selection process. This process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price, and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a best value contract award.

The basis for award of a contract as a result of this solicitation will be an integrated assessment by the Contracting Officer of the results of the evaluation based on the evaluation factors and their importance as indicated below. The integrated assessment will include consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals. Ultimately, the source selection decision will take into account the Offeror's capability to meet the requirements of this solicitation on a timely and cost effective basis.

The Government reserves such right of flexibility in conducting the evaluation as is necessary to assure placement of a contract is in the Government's best interest. Accordingly, the Government may award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the Offeror with the highest evaluation rating.

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, in the Government’s estimation, provides the best value in response to the requirement.

M.2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor (1) GE License and Factor (4) Small Business Participation Commitment will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and will not be considered in the best value tradeoff decision, however an Acceptable rating in these factors are required to be eligible for award. Factor (2)

Technical and Factor (3) Past Performance are listed in descending order of importance. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactor of Technical Approach/Capability, Facilities and Capacity, are in descending order of importance. All best value evaluation factors other than Total

Evaluated Price, when combined, are approximately equal to Total Evaluated Price. However, when the non-cost/price factors are rated more equally between Offerors, Total Evaluated Price becomes more of a deciding factor in making the best value determination.

M.3 EVALUATION APPROACH

FACTOR 1 – GE LICENSE

In order to be rated acceptable for Factor 1, an Offeror must provide proof of the Offeror’s current status as a General Electric, Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), authorized repair activity.

GE License Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of L.3.2 of the Solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of L.3.2 of the Solicitation.

FACTOR 2- TECHNICAL

Subfactor 2A- Technical Approach Capability

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates the Offeror’s process for conducting incoming inventory, general cleaning, and condition inspections/assessments of LM2500 TMFs; describes its capability to refurbish/upgrade and test

TMF assemblies; describes its capability to access and procure required replacement components per the SOW.

Subfactor 2B- Facilities and Capacity

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates the Offeror has the facilities and capacity as described in L3.3.2.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings – Factor 2 Technical, Subfactor 2A. Technical

Approach/Capability, Subfactor 2B. Facilities and Capacity

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

FACTOR 3 PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

There are (3) three aspects to the past performance evaluation: Recency, relevancy, and quality

(including general trends in Contractor performance and source of information). The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is considered work performed within the past (3) three years. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming. With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy 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. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)) these are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts.

Past Performance Relevancy

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.

Past Performance Confidence Assessments

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 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 4 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT

1. Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD)

The Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) information will be used to evaluate the extent of your proposed participation/commitment to use small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors). Offerors will be evaluated on the extent small businesses are identified in the performance of the contract, and the nature of the Offeror’s commitment to use such firms.

Proposals that do not use the total proposed contract value as the base in any calculations contained in the SBPCD will be considered unacceptable.

Offerors will be evaluated on the consistency of the proposed subcontracting commitment when compared to the information in its cost and technical proposal, if applicable.

2. Small Business Participation Commitment Past Performance

The Government will also evaluate each Offeror’s submitted supporting documents to assess its utilization of small business and its past performance in achieving goals and objectives established in prior Subcontracting Plans or Small Business Participation Commitment Documents. The

Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror as well as data the

Government develops and obtains through other sources (e.g., CPARS, eSRS reports and mentor-protégé agreements etc.).

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant small business participation past performance or for whom information on small business participation 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”) small business participation past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Small Business Participation Commitment Ratings

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

FACTOR 5 – TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. As defined in FAR 15.404, unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

PRICE EVALUATION (FIXED PRICE)

Price will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) for Firm-

Fixed Price CLINS 0001 through 0010.The proposed price for the Offeror’s proposal will be arrived at by multiplying the offered price for each CLIN in Section B times the quantity for that

CLIN, and totaling the result for all CLINs.

Total quantities and ODC amounts are estimates only to establish ceiling amounts, and do not necessarily reflect the total amount of ODCs that the Government will actually order. The

Government may order less than the total quantities or may order up to the maximum quantities listed in Section B.

In the absence of adequate price competition, the Contracting Officer may request additional data per FAR 15.403-3 and as described in the solicitation provision 52.215-7010, Requirements for

Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data (JUL 2019).

M.4 COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION INSTRUCTIONS

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. However, the Government reserves the right to enter into discussions with Offerors as it is determined by the Contracting Officer to be in the

Government’s best interest.

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 most highly rated proposals.

M.5 DISCUSSION/FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

If the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are to be held, they shall indicate to, or discuss with, each Offeror still being considered for award; significant weaknesses, deficiencies, adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of Contracting Officer judgment. At the conclusion of discussions, each Offeror still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision. A final cut-off date for receipt of final proposal revisions will be established by the Contracting Officer.

(End of Summary of Changes)