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 A - Solicitation/Contract Form

The following changes have been made:

INFORMATION FROM TO

Response Due Date 27 Mar 2026 28 May 2026

N6449826R00120007

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

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

Element (1A) Estimated Completion Time, Factor (2) Past Performance, and Factor (4) Total Evaluated Price are listed in descending order of importance. Element (1B) Welding Procedure and Personnel and Factor (3) 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 this factor is required to be eligible for award. All best value evaluation factors other than Total Evaluated Price, when combined, are approximately equal to Total Evaluated Cost (TEC)/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

ELEMENT 1A - ESTIMATED COMPLETION TIME

Proposals will be evaluated on offerors proposed completion time for work to be performed in the Statement of Work. Consideration will be given to realistic estimated completion times and exceeding proposed delivery timeframe.

Adjectiv al Rating

Description

Outstand ing

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.

Accepta ble

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.

Unaccep table

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.

ELEMENT 1B - WELDING PROCEDURE AND PERSONNEL

In order to be rated acceptable for factor 2, and offeror must provide a copy of their certified welding procedures and applicable qualification documents for at least one person.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the Solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the Solicitation

FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the past performance references for recency, relevancy and quality of performance. Recent performance includes efforts performed within the past five (5) calendar years from solicitation release date. Relevant performance includes efforts that are of similar scope and complexity as identified in the PWS/SOW. Past performance references that reflect projects with a similar scope and complexity to efforts described in this solicitation will be considered to have greater importance in the evaluation of this factor. The Government will evaluate all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the assignment of a performance confidence assessment rating.

The Government reserves its right to collect and use information from sources other than those identified in the proposal to evaluate past performance. This may include, but not limited to, Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases, and/or personal knowledge. The Government may contact past or current customers to collect additional information for use in evaluating past performance. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact and to contact other references than those provided in the proposal. The Government reserves the right to not perform a past performance evaluation on any Offeror that is assigned an "Unacceptable" adjectival rating under Factor 1 - Technical.

Adjectival Rating Description . The Government will assign adjectival ratings for Factor 2 in accordance with the following information. For recency, each past performance reference will be assigned a rating of "Recent" or "Not Recent" as determined by whether the effort was performed within the past calendar years from solicitation release date. For relevancy, each past performance reference will be five (5) assigned a rating in accordance with the below table.

Adjectival Ratings

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

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror's past performance. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into a performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned;

rather, an overall performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned based on the Offeror's overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. 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. The Government will assign an overall performance confidence assessment ratings in accordance with the below table.

Adjecti val Rat ings

Description

Substa ntial C onfide nce

Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfa ctory Confid ence

Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutra l Confi dence

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.

Limite d Conf idence

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 Co nfiden ce

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.

While "Neutral Confidence" ratings will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, the Government may determine that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" rating is worth more than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

FACTOR 3 - SMALL BUSINESS COMMITMENT DOCUMENTATION

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- protege 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

Rating Description

Acceptable/Neutral Meets or exceeds requirements.

Unacceptable Does not meet minimum requirements.

FACTOR 4 - TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (FIRM FIXED 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 will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) for Firm-Fixed Price CLINS 0001 through 0002.

The proposed price for the Offeror's proposal should be provided by completing Attachment 02 "Price Sheet." The guaranteed minimum will be met with the first order of at least one (1) each of CLIN 0001 Intermediate Balance Arbor. The total evaluated price will be arrived at by adding the price of CLIN 0001 ordering period one (1) (guaranteed minimum) to the sum of the average prices of CLIN 0001 ordering periods one through five plus the average price of CLIN 0002 ordering periods one through five. See Attachment 2 "Price Sheet."

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.

5001 S BROAD STREET, PHILADELPHIA PA 19112-1403

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19112-1403

UNITED STATES

Taylor Sloan, Email: taylor.n.sloan.civ@us.navy.mil Telephone: 267-467-0936 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS: