W31P4Q26R0013-0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. Contract ID Code Page Of

2. Amendment/Modification No.

3. Effective Date

4. Requisition/Purchase Req No.

5. Project No. (If applicable)

6. Issued By Code 7. Administered By (If other than Item 6) Code

8. Name And Address Of Contractor (No., Street, City, County, State and Zip Code)

9A. Amendment Of Solicitation No.

9B. Dated (See Item 11)

10A. Modification Of Contract/Order No.

10B. Dated (See Item 13) Code Facility Code

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 amendments: (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 ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS

It Modifies The Contract/Order No. As Described In Item 14.

A. This Change Order is Issued Pursuant To: 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 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 15C. Date Signed 16B. United States Of America 16C. Date Signed

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

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITIONS UNUSABLE

30-105-02 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

SEE SCHEDULE

X

Firm Fixed Price

0002 2026JUN10

W31P4Q

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND-REDSTONE

REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-5280

ALLISON C. BEASON

EMAIL: ALLISON.C.BEASON.CIV@ARMY.MIL

W31P4Q-26-R-0013

2026MAY12

X

X

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 4

CONTINUATION SHEET

Reference No. of Document Being Continued Page of

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION A - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Buyer Name: ALLISON C. BEASON

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCAM-MSB-A/(520)674-8102

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

A-1. The purpose of this Amendment 0002 is to update Section M to add evaluation of price realism.

A-2. Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

a. M-3.4 PRICE is hereby updated to add the evaluation of price realism.

A-3. The proposal due date will not be extended as a result of this change.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0003 ***

2 4

W31P4Q-26-R-0013

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-2 BASIS FOR AWARD

M-2.1 This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(AFARS). Award will be made to a single offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable offer.

M-2.2 Trade-offs between cost/price and non-cost/price factors are not permitted. Unreasonably high/ unrealistically low, unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals, may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

M-2.3 Information submitted in Volume I, General Information, will not be rated but it will be reviewed to determine contractor responsiveness and responsibility. Failure to address all items requested in Section L may deem the offeror's proposal unresponsive.

Offerors must meet standards of responsibility set forth in FAR 9.104. The Government reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey on any or all offerors to aid in the evaluation of each offeror's proposal and ensure that a selected offeror is responsible. No award can be made to an offeror who has been determined unresponsive or non-responsible by the Contracting Officer.

M-2.4 The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the Contracting Officer will review this determination and if, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional price information will be necessary. However, if at any time during this competition, the Contracting Officer determines adequate price competition no longer exists; or, price reasonableness cannot be determined, offerors may be required to submit certified cost or pricing data or additional data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the Contracting Officer to support a determination of price reasonableness.

M-2.5 The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR

15.306(a)(1)). Therefore, the offerors proposal should contain the offerors best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

M-2.6 The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary IAW FAR

15.306(a)(3).

M-3 FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

M-3.1 Basis of Award - The Government will evaluate and rate the technical and past performance factors with an acceptable or unacceptable ratings. An unacceptable rating on either the technical or past performance factors disqualifies the offeror from award.

The price factor will not be rated. The price factor is more important than the technical and past performance factors, which are equal in importance.

M-3.2 FACTOR I - TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate proposals based on the following criteria.

a) Vendor quotes for raw materials: Quote material and quantities will be evaluated to ensure offeror understanding of the requirement and appropriate sources are available to support production capacity.

b) Welding Certification: The Government will evaluated the offeror's ability to meet AMS-STD-2219 Class C Fusion Welding.

c) Quality Management System Plan: The Government will evaluate the offeror's Quality Management System Plan to ensure compliance with or equivalent to ISO 9001/AS 9100 standards.

d) Milestone schedule: The Government will evaluate the proposed schedule to determine understanding of the requirement and feasibility of proposed production line establishment, inert warhead production steps, certification activities, testing, and inert warhead completion in a timely manner to meet the baseline schedule.

An evaluation rating of acceptable or unacceptable will be assigned upon completion of the technical proposal evaluation. If an offeror receives a technical rating of unacceptable, it will not be considered for contract award.

Technical Rating Definitions:

Acceptable - Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable - Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M-3.3 FACTOR II - PAST PERFORMANCE

M-3.3.1 The Past Performance evaluation will assess the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of past performance. Past Performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror's recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation.

3 4

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M-3.3.2 Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror's proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and

State Department Watch Lists. In the event that adverse past performance information is obtained from other sources, and the agency conducts either discussions or communications with the particular offeror as defined in FAR 15.306, the offeror will have the opportunity to respond to any adverse information received which it had not had a previous opportunity to comment.

M-3.3.3 Past performance areas of evaluation include:

M-3.3.3.1 Quality of Service

M-3.3.3.2 Schedule

M-3.3.3.3 Cost Control

M-3.3.3.4 Customer Satisfaction

M-3.3.4 Each offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on the Offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Contract requirements.

M-3.3.5 Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past (3) three years from the date of closing of this solicitation.

Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M-3.3.6 Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature of work, size, dollar value, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation.

M-3.3.7 Assigning Ratings. The Past Performance Factor will be assigned one of the ratings defined below:

M-3.3.7.1 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).

M-3.3.7.2 Unacceptable - 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.

NOTE - Offerors 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 in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).

M-3.4 PRICE

The total evaluated price will be determined by adding together the total proposed extended prices for the minimum plot point and the total extended prices for the maximum plot points for the base (including qualification costs) and two option years as reflected in

Attachment 0008, Pricing Worksheet. The offeror's price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques described in FAR

15.404-1(b).

Unbalanced Pricing: The offerors price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost and price analysis techniques.

Offerors are cautioned that a proposal the Government assesses to be unbalanced as to price, may either be rejected or determined unacceptable for award. See FAR 15.404-1(g) for information on unbalanced pricing.

Reasonableness: Price will not be scored or rated. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the offered prices. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price. Analytical techniques and procedures described in FAR 15.404-1 may be used, singly or in combination with others, to ensure that the final price is fair and reasonable.

Realism: Proposed prices will be evaluated to determine if they are realistic for the work to be performed. Proposals that are determined unrealistic will be rejected as reflecting a lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

4 4