(25R0004) Bahrain Job Order Solicitation Amendment 0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

1. Address and Fix any errors present in the initial solicitation while addressing all prior proposl inquiries.

2. All other terms and conditions remain It is understood and agreed that this adjustment constitutes compensation in full for all costs, directly and indirectly attributable to the changes ordered herein, for all delays related thereto, and for performance of the changes w ithin the time frame stated. In addition, the Contractor hereby releases the Government from any and all liability under this contract for further equitable adjustments attributable to such facts or circumstances giving rise to the changes ordered herein

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.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 N3319125R0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-June-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, 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.)

The purpose of this amendment to:

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

10-JUNE-2025

CODE

NAVFAC EUROPE AFRICA CENTRAL

VIALE PORTO CAPODICHINO

NAPOLI 80144

N33191 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

X

N3319125R0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 13 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been added by full text:

BASIS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION

BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with offeror’s in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value—the proposal most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

2. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offeror’s (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In addition, 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 the most highly rated proposals.

3. The tradeoff process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow consideration of award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

4. As stated in the solicitation, all technical factors when combined are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating; and all technical factors and the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating, when combined are approximately equal to price.

5. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions. Proposals may be found to have either a significant weakness or multiple weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal.

A. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS/DESCRIPTIONS

1. TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

a. A combined technical/risk evaluation includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings shall be used. The technical risk evaluation shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the following table. Adjectival ratings and rating descriptions will be used to assign an overall rating to each technical proposal and to assign a rating for each technical factor. Use upper case letter ratings for major technical factors as well as the overall rating. The addition of plus (+) or minus (-) to an adjective rating is not allowed.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Rating Description

Outstanding (O)

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 (G) 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 (A)

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

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

Unacceptable (U)

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.

2. Definitions: The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation of each non-price factor.

a. Significant Strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

b. Strength: An aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

c. Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

d. Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

e. Uncertainty: any aspect of a non-price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

f. Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

B. SAFETY EVALUATION

1. Safety will be a stand-alone evaluation criterion in this solicitation. The safety evaluation is described under the Non-Price Factor 3 and consists of the Technical Approach to Safety.

C. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

1. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

2. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

3. The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. 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. The third is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration shall be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following:

similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services) and extent of subcontract/teaming. 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]). 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. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance rating using the confidence assessment rating, is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

4. For purposes of this evaluation, a recent project is defined as a project that was completed no more than five (5) years prior to issuance of the solicitation.

5. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is defined as an effort involving the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Prior projects must at a minimum demonstrate:

a. A total value of no less than $50,000. (If a project was awarded in a currency other than US dollars, the offeror must convert the non-US dollar currency into US dollars using the appropriate exchange rate as of the day the contract for the submitted project was awarded); and

b. Be for renovation; repair; maintenance; replacement; alteration; demolition; or construction tasks performed under a single order or contract.

6. This source selection requires a greater level of discrimination within the past performance evaluation, therefore, the relevancy ratings in the following table shall be used:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Adjectival Rating Definition

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.

7. The SSEB 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 the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy and quality of performance. In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a confidence rating of “neutral.”

Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated selection criteria.

8. Performance Confidence Assessment. This source selection requires a greater level of discrimination within the past performance evaluation, therefore, the SSEB shall use all confidence ratings identified in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments 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 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.

D. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-price factors:

Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Management Approach Factor 3 – Safety Factor 4 – Past Performance

The distinction between experience and past performance is that experience pertains to the volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work described under the definition of recent, relevant projects, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

2. The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is as follows: Factor 1, Factor 2, and Factor 3 are of equal importance to each other and, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment factor, Factor 4. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined (the non-price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to price.

The importance of price will increase if the offeror’s non-price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if price is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-price proposal’s superiority to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

3. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor.

a. PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS (Volume I – Price Proposal)

For the purposes of establishing coefficients for this contract, the offeror shall provide a proposed coefficient for Coefficients 1 through 4 on the Coefficient Schedule, provided as an attachment to the solicitation (Attachment B). Failure to offer a coefficient for Coefficients 1 through 4 will result in the offeror being ineligible for award. The coefficients will become a part of the contract upon award and will be effective for the base period and all option periods. On the Coefficient Schedule, the offeror is to insert a proposed coefficient, which will be multiplied by the Example Value for Coefficients 1 through 4. The Example Value for Coefficients 1 – 4 are to be added together to arrive at the Total Evaluated Price

(TEP).

Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The offeror’s price proposal shall be separate from the technical proposal. Complete and submit the following:

1) Cover letter in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(2), including Solicitation Number;

name, address, telephone and email address of the Offeror; in case the Offeror is a JOINT VENTURE (JV), the name of the JV MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED;

Name, title, and signature of the person authorized to sign the proposal; Unique Entity ID Number and CAGE or NCAGE Code of the Offeror; and a Unique Entity ID Number for each member of the JV.

2) Completed (Blocks 14 through 20c), signed and dated Standard Form (SF) 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. In block 14, please include a point of contract with a valid phone number and email address. Offerors shall provide a CAGE/NCAGE code in block 14.

3) Letter from the offeror’s surety. The letter is to verify the offeror has at least a $10M aggregate bonding capacity, or $2M a year.

4) Completed Coefficient Schedule.

5) A bulleted list, identifying all cost factor categories included in your coefficient. At a minimum, your coefficient is to include the cost elements identified in the General Requirements, Paragraph C.4 and its subparagraphs. This narrative is limited to one (1) 8.5” x 11” page, one inch margins, Times New Roman size 12 font.

6) Acknowledgement of all amendments.

7) Joint Venture (JV) Agreement (if applicable).

8) Financial Statements – The offeror shall provide the latest three complete fiscal year financial statements, certified by an independent accounting firm or at least by an authorized officer of the organization. If a new Joint Venture (JV) is being proposed, include the latest three complete fiscal year financial statements for each firm, certified by an independent accounting firm or at least by an authorized officer of the organization.

9) Submit evidence of availability of working/operating capital from an independent financial institution which will be used for the performance of the resultant contract.

10) The Government intends to pay invoices in accordance with the clause for Wide Area Work Flow. To do this, your firm must have a U.S. bank or a U.S. bank affiliate associated with your local bank. With your proposal, identify the name of your U.S.

bank or affiliate for purposes of paying invoices.

Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total evaluated price (TEP). The TEP consists of the basic requirements and all option items. The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

• Comparison of proposed Total Evaluated Prices received in response to the RFP;

• Comparison of proposed Total Evaluated Prices with the Government Estimate;

• Comparison of proposed Total Evaluated Prices with available historical information;

• Comparison of proposed Total Evaluated Prices with market average.

b. NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS (Volume II – Non-Price Proposal)

Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Management Approach Factor 3 – Safety Factor 4 – Past Performance

FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE:

1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Submit a minimum of three (3) to a maximum of five (5) examples of recent and relevant projects that best demonstrates the offeror’s experience. Offeror’s shall utilize Attachment C – Project Sheet, to submit applicable project information. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed two (2) pages (8.5” x 11”; one inch margins; times new roman size 12 font) per project. If the page limit is exceeded, only the first two (2) pages per project will be evaluated.

For each project the offeror shall provide:

1. Contract number, title, and location

2. Dollar value; annually and contract life

3. Type of contract (i.e. fixed price, cost reimbursable, or other – specify) If applicable, identify base period and all option periods

4. Contract start date and completion date and beneficial occupancy date (BOD)

5. Identify type of services provided – similar scope, size & complexity

6. Nature of firm’s responsibility (prime contractor or subcontractor)

7. Percentage of the work that your firm performed as the prime contractor or subcontractor

A project is defined as a repair, alteration, demolition, maintenance services or construction project performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather, offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed, the location of the work performed, and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods). The projects may be for the U.S. Government or other clients.

For purposes of this evaluation, a recent project is defined as a project that was completed no more than five (5) years prior to issuance of the solicitation.

For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is defined as an effort involving the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Prior projects must at a minimum demonstrate:

a. A total value of no less than $50,000. (If a project was awarded in a currency other than US dollars, the offeror must convert the non-US dollar currency into US dollars using the appropriate exchange rate as of the day the contract for the submitted project was awarded).

b. Be for renovation; repair; maintenance; replacement; alteration; demolition; or construction tasks performed under a single order or contract.

The projects submitted shall clearly identify if the offeror performed as a prime contractor, joint venture/team/partner member or as a subcontractor. If experience was as a subcontractor, then less credit may be given to the experience. If more than five

(5) projects are submitted, only the most recent five will be reviewed in the evaluation.

If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience shall be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects shall be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all Joint Venture partners may be rated lower. The Government will not consider any project submitted for Factor 1 if it was performed by a firm other than the offeror and there is no supporting joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, letter of commitment, or explanation of meaningful involvement. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

2) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include an assessment of the demonstrated experience and depth of experience of the offeror in performing recent and relevant projects, as defined in the solicitation requirements. The assessment of the offeror’s recent and relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. Only projects that meet the criteria for recency and relevancy will be evaluated.

Demonstrating any of the following may result in a more favorable consideration in the Government’s evaluation:

1. Experience working on JOC contracts.

2. Experience with compliance with Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC).

3. Experience within NAVFACSYSCOM Public Works Department (PWD) Bahrain

Area of Responsibility (AOR).

4. Experience leveraging local resources including equipment, materials, subcontractors, and customs clearance services.

5. Experience providing proposals quickly and mobilizing quickly to respond emergency or urgent requirements.

6. Experience self-performing relevant features of work.

7. Experience performing multiple projects and with multiple disciplines simultaneously.

8. Experience in ALL of the following types of work: new construction, renovation, utility systems and alteration.

9. Experience in ALL of the following types of utility systems: potable water systems, waste water systems, electrical systems, fire protection/suppression systems, and mechanical systems (HVAC, plumbing, pumps).

Proposals that fail to provide required and complete information will be deemed deficient/unacceptable.

FACTOR 2, MANAGEMENT APPROACH:

1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Offeror’s response to Factor 2 shall be a maximum ten (10) pages (8.5” x 11” or A4; one inch margins; times new roman size 12 font) for this factor. If more than ten (10) pages are submitted, only the first ten (10) pages will be evaluated. The organizational chart will not be part of the page count. The offeror shall provide the following:

1. Provide an organizational chart and a workforce management plan describing the interrelationship of the off-site management team and on-site management team(s).

Organization chart shall clearly show management authority, supervision, span of control, and accountability. At a minimum, the organization chart must display key personnel. If the offeror is a Joint Venture, organizational chart should describe the business entity on-site management will report to and show what overhead resources will support the on-site management team. Workforce management plan shall clearly describe the capability of the proposed team to successfully develop conforming proposals and complete projects on time at or under budget.

Additionally, the workforce management plan shall clearly describe how the offeror will meet the contract requirements for key personnel identified in Section C.2.6 (Project Manager, Contractor Corporate Safety Official, Quality Control Manager, Site Safety and Health Officer, Designated Project Scheduler, Project Superintendent, and Environmental Manager); to include specific methodology for recruiting and hiring project personnel with required minimum qualifications.

Offeror should provide a roster of current employees that meet the qualification requirements for key personnel roles as well as the employees’ respective length of employment.

2. Discuss approach to Subcontractor relationships (if applicable), to include roles and responsibilities of subcontractors in delivering engineering support, material supply logistics to include customs and clearance, or providing technical discipline specific construction services, such as roofing, fire protection, HVAC, electrical, water, wastewater, and lead and asbestos environmental sampling and remediation.

Include any pre-established relationships with organizations qualified for work within the scope of this solicitation, quantifying number of projects that have been completed together and/or number of years of partnering. If an offeror does not intend to use sub-contractors, they must clearly state that all work will be self-performed.

3. Describe offeror’s approach for working in areas of limited access, limited lay down space, suggesting phasing as part of joint scoping efforts, and working around activities with minimal disruption.

4. Discuss how the offeror will provide labor, materials, equipment, subcontractors, and key personnel to perform multiple tasks and multiple sites simultaneously, when required.

5. Discuss how the offeror will respond to proposed task orders that may have short notice site visits and/or response times for submitting proposals.

6. Discuss management process for partnering with government representatives to fully identify work needed to fulfill government scope of work requirements, recommending revisions based on conditions observed on site that will provide better quality, maintainability, constructability, operability, or price to the Government, and proposing a joint scope of work. Include examples of any previous successful joint-scoping efforts.

7. Discuss management of an acceptable estimating system, as defined in DFARS 252.215-7002, for non-prepriced line items.

8. Discuss the offeror’s strategies for handling surges in workload and the offeror’s approach to managing subcontractor and self-performed work scheduling to deliver timely project completion in accordance with negotiated periods of performance.

9. Discuss the offeror’s Quality Control system and program.

10. Discuss the offeror’s approach and methods for obtaining required permits, licenses, and similar government authorizations in accordance with host nation local laws and regulations in the NAVFACSYSCOM Public Works Department (PWD) Bahrain Area of Responsibility (AOR), which includes Bahrain and United Arab Emirates.

2) Basis of Evaluation:

The evaluation will include an assessment of proposed management approach and offeror’s responses to the submittal requirements for this factor.

Offerors may receive a higher rating if they can successfully demonstrate in their narrative their ability to meet one or more of the following:

1. An organizational chart and supporting management approach that shows highly qualified key personnel and organizational structure that delegates authority to support timely decision making in the management multiple and task orders simultaneously (more than five (5)).

2. Effective use of subcontractors or in-house personnel to successfully complete projects on time and on budget.

3. Strong scheduling capabilities conforming to FAR 52.236-15 Schedules for Construction Contracts demonstrating the ability to manage multiple simultaneous project schedules with competing milestone dates that result in projects completed on time or ahead of contracted completion date.

4. Quick turnaround times on last minute requirements that includes the use of Joint Scoping, the development of a Detailed Joint Scope of Work, and Site Investigations meeting the requirements of FAR 52.236-6 Site Investigation and Conditions Affecting the Work that minimizes change orders due to unforeseen site conditions, and leverages partnerships with suppliers that reduce overall material contract costs and delivery timelines.

5. A Quality Control System that complies with FAR 52.246-12 Inspection of Construction resulting in conforming submittal submissions and construction work that minimizes rework resulting in projects completed on time or ahead of contracted completion date.

6. Cost estimating system that supports Contracting Officer objectives of determining fair and reasonable prices for non-pre-priced line items in accordance with FAR Part 31 and DFARS part 231, and the overall delivery of cost proposals in less than 14 calendar days to support Government timely execution of Task Orders and modifications.

7. Effective management approach to obtaining required access, permits, licenses, and similar government authorizations from government ministries and departments in Bahrain and UAE, as evidenced by successful completion of complex construction projects on time or ahead of contracted completion date extensive coordination and approval requirements.

FACTOR 3, SAFETY:

1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The offeror shall submit a Safety Narrative addressing the following information: (For a partnership or joint venture, only one safety narrative is required but it shall address each partner contractor or joint venture member.

The narrative shall describe the offeror’s technical approach to safety for its employees as well as the plan that the offeror will implement to evaluate and measure safety performance of potential subcontractors as a part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. Due to the variety of work that may be issued under this contract, the offeror shall submit their plan for potential subcontractors even if the offeror does not anticipate the use of subcontractors initially. Failure to submit a plan to evaluate and measure safety performance of potential subcontractors will be considered a deficiency.

The Safety Narrative shall be limited to two (2) pages (8.5” x 11” or A4; one inch margins; times new roman size 12 font). If more than two (2) pages are submitted, only the first two (2) pages will be reviewed in the evaluation.

2) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety may include, but are not limited to, the information provided in the Safety Narrative response, Government agencies, OSHA, NAVFACSYSCOM’s Facility Accident and Incident Reporting (FAIR) and Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS) databases and other related resource. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the offeror.

The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

1. Offeror’s technical approach to safety

2. Other sources of information available to the Government

Regarding subcontractors, the Government will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project.

Demonstrating any of the following may result in a more favorable consideration in the Government’s evaluation:

1. A proven history of safety.

2. A proven history of hiring subcontractors with a culture of safety.

FACTOR 4, PAST PERFORMANCE:

1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: For Factor 4, offerors shall submit past performance information as follows for the same prior projects the offeror identified in its proposal under Factor 1.

IF A COMPLETED CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

REPORTING SYSTEM (CPARS) EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE FOR A PRIOR

PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN ITS PROPOSAL FOR FACTOR 1, IT SHALL BE

SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CPARS

EVALUATION, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), i.e., Attachment D, included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project without a completed CPARS evaluation. AN OFFEROR

SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment D), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Marc Zurasky, via email at marc.r.zurasky.civ@us.navy.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last 5 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, additional or other relevant past performance information retrieved through the CPARS using all CAGE/Entity Identifier numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), sam.gov Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

2) Basis of Evaluation:

The degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., CPARS, sam.gov Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering:

• A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

• A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

• A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.); and Recency of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand.

(End of Summary of Changes)

• Enhance our program as we develop and implement an Environmental Management System;

and

• Adhere to this policy, remind one another to do so, and ensure that our entire community knows this is our policy by our actions as well as our words.

C.20.3 The Contractor shall maintain monitoring and measurement information to address the EMS goals and policy and provide the EMS Goals and Policy Measurement Information to the KO when requested. In the event an EMS nonconformance or environmental noncompliance associated with the contracted services, tasks, or actions occurs, the Contractor shall take corrective and/or preventative actions. In the case of a noncompliance, the Contractor shall assume legal and financial liability for the noncompliance and take corrective action immediately to remedy the noncompliance. In the case of a nonconformance, the Contractor shall respond and take corrective action based on the time schedule established by the KO. The Contractor shall ensure that its employees are aware of their roles and responsibilities under the EMS and how these EMS roles and responsibilities affect work performed under the contract.

C.21 FACILITY ELECTRONIC OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SUPPORT

INFORMATION (eOMSI)

The Contractor shall provide electronic Operation and Maintenance Support Information ( eOMSI) on new construction projects greater than or equal to $1 million, and for major renovation projects greater than or equal to 50 percent of the Plant Replacement Value of the existing facility.

C.21.1

C.21.2

C.21.3 eOMSI is divided into two major types of information:

a. The eOMSI Manual, which is organized around two traditional Operation and Maintenance Support Information (OMSI) headings: (1) Product and Drawing Information; and (2) Facility Information. The Manual is provided by the Contractor and includes product information, a facility description with photos, and a list of primary facility systems.

b. The eOMSI Facility Data Workbook, which is available for download on the Whole Building Design Guide under UFGS 01 78 24.00 20 in the UFGS Title column. The Facility Data Workbook is a Microsoft Excel file containing required facility information populated by the Contractor.

eOMSI Meetings. The Contractor shall facilitate an eOMSI Manual and Facility Data Workbook Coordination Meeting prior to the submission of the eOMSI Progress Submittal. The purpose of this meeting is to reach a mutual understanding of the scope of work concerning the contract requirements for eOMSI and coordinate the efforts necessary by both the Government and Contractor to ensure an accurate collection, preparation and timely Government review of eOMSI.

eOMSI Submittals.

a. eOMSI, Prefinal Submittal: Contractor shall submit the 100 percent submittal of the eOMSI Prefmal submittal to the Contracting Officer for approval within 60 calendar days of the Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD). This submittal must provide a complete, working document that can be used to operate and maintain the facility. Any portion of the submittal that is incomplete or inaccurate requires the entire submittal to be returned for correction. The eOMSI Prefmal Submittal must include eOMSI Manual Files (bookmarked pelf) and eOMSI Facility Data Workbook (excel).

b. eOMSI, Final Submittal: Contractor shall submit completed eOMSI Manual Files (bookmarked pelf) and eOMSI Facility Data Workbook ( excel). The fmal submittal is due at BOD. Any discrepancies discovered during the Government's

C.21.4

C.21.4.1

C.21.5

C.21.5.1

N33 l 9125R0004 review of the Prefinal eOMSI submittal, including the Field Verification, must be corrected prior to the Final eOMSI submission.

eOMSI Manual.

Product and Drawing Information: Provide an organized record of the facility products, materials, equipment, and testing submittals, and the minimum information necessary to operate the facility. Provide Product and Drawing Information for the systems of the 'fmal constructed facility'.

a. Facility Information - Roofing: Provide the total area of each type of roof surface and system. Provide the name of the roofing product and system;

manufacturer's, supplier's, and installer's names, addresses, and phone numbers;

manufacturer's product name, identifying number and color. For each type ofroof, provide a recommended inspection, maintenance and repair schedule that details checkpoints, frequencies, and prohibited practices. List roof structural load limits.

b. Facility Information - HV AC Filters: Provide a table that lists the quantity, type, size, and location of each HV AC filter, manufacturer's product name, and identifying number.

c. Facility Information - Plumbing Fixtures: Provide a table that lists by room number, the number and type of plumbing and bathroom plumbing fixtures.

d. Facility Information - Lighting Fixtures: Provide a table that lists by room number (including hallways and common spaces), the type oflighting fixture, ballast, number of lighting fixtures, type of lamps and number of lamps, and the manufacturer's product name and the identifying number. The table must include a facility summary of the total number of fixtures of each type and number of lamps of each type.

e. Facility Information - Equipment Listing: Provide a table that lists the major equipment shown on the design equipment schedules. Show the item descriptions, location, model numbers; and the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the manufacturers, suppliers, contractors, and subcontractors.

f. Facility Information - System Flow Diagrams: Provide a flow diagram indicating system liquid, air or gas flow during normal operations. Integrate the system components into the diagram. A compilation of non-integrated, flow diagrams for the individual system components are not acceptable.

g. Facility Information - Valve List: Provide a list of all valves associated with the system. Show valve type, identification number, function, location and normal operating position.

h. Facility Information - Riser Diagrams: Provide riser diagrams and settings of equipment.

eOMSI Facility Data Workbook

Contractor shall download the eOMSI Facility Data Workbook at the following location: http://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/unified-facilities-guide-specifications ufgs/forms-graphics-tables. Complete the KTR Facility Data File tab based on the selection of Master systems, Systems, and Subsystems installed. The following tabs are included in the eOMSI Facility Data File Workbook and serve the purpose stated:

a. Instructions Tab: Instructions for completing Model & Facility Data Matrix Tab and KTR Facility Data File Tab. If a discrepancy exists between what is required in this section and the Workbook, the instructions within the Workbook take precedence.

b. Model & Facility Data Matrix Tab: The Matrix lists Required Facility Asset Fields for each SYSTEM and SUBSYSTEM. The specification writer selects SYSTEMS and SUBSYSTEMS that are within the project scope, which the

C.21.5.2

C.21.6

C.22

Contractor needs to include and populate in KTR Facility Data File tab. The "Required Facility Asset Field Position Numbers," one through thirty-five, are pre populated, and are not editable.

c. Required Facility Asset Fields Tab: Defines the 35 Required Facility Asset Field Position Numbers used in Model and Facility Data Matrix and KTR Facility Data File tabs.

d. KTR Sample Facility Data File Tab: Sample KTR eOMSI facility data file.

This tab provides an example of the mandatory fields of equipment installed by the Contractor, and populated in the KTR eOMSI Facility Data File Tab, along with their descriptions.

e. KTR Facility Data File Tab: Required eOMSI facility data file deliverable provided to the Government. Provide a separate and unique new row for each facility component or piece of equipment installed. Coordinate with the Government's Contracting Officer's Representative and NA VFAC PW FMD for specific facility component naming convention.

KTR - an abbreviation for "Contractor".

Field Verification: Contractor shall field verify that at least 5 SUBSYSTEMS under each of the MASTER SYSTEMS are accurate, for a total of25 SUBSYSTEMS. For each of these items, verify that the required facility asset field, as defined in the "Model & Facility Data Matrix" tab, contains the specified data and it is accurate (i.e.,, item description, manufacturer, model no., serial no.).

100 percent accuracy of eOMSI information is required for successful field verification. If data discrepancies are discovered amongst the 25 SUBSYSTEMS verified, resubmit an updated eOMSI FDW.

VALUE ADDED TAX(VAT)

FAR 52.229-6 Taxes-Foreign Fixed-Price Contracts and DFARS 252.229-7001 Tax Relief apply. The U.S. Department of Defense is not exempt from paying VAT in UAE.

The U.S. Department of Defense is exempt from paying VAT in Bahrain. Pricing or invoices are required to be submitted exclusive of VAT. The contractor shall take all required steps and follows the procedures required by the Bahrain Governments to claim VAT exemption for all transactions via this contract.

Per the National Bureau of Revenue letter dated 13 October 2024, the United States Armed Forces are to be charged 0% VAT on all invoices dated on or after 01 November 2024.

Any invoice issued to United States Armed Forces entities that does not comply with the application of the zero-rated VAT (i.e. any invoice that includes a VAT charge in any form, direct or indirect), will be rejected and no payment shall be processed against such invoice.

This exemption applies to United States Armed Forces entities only and contractors may continue to be liable to pay VAT to subcontractors. VAT registered contractors may, in accordance with Kingdom of Bahrain's Executive Regulations of the Value Added Tax Law, are able to reclaim VAT paid to subcontractors from the NBR; contractors shall not pass their liability for VAT paid to subcontractors on to the U.S. Government as an additional expense under the contract.

Contractors registered as taxable commercial entities in Bahrain may be required to submit tax invoices that meet the requirements of Article 52 of the Executive Regulations of the Value Added Tax Law and will be subject to local requirements and audits from the tax authority. Contractors may be asked by the Kingdom of Bahrain's National Bureau of Revenue (NBR) to provide copies of the invoices and their respective contracts. The U.S.