(25R0004)(P0003) Amendment P0003.pdf

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 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.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

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.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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)

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

P0003 N33191

SEE BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

NAVFAC EUROPE AFRICA CENTRAL

VIALE PORTO CAPODICHINO

NAPOLI 80144

See Item 6

J

N3319125R0004

07/03/2025

05/19/2025

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN RED

THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO:

1. Section 01 00 00 - General Requirements is updated as follows:

C.4.3 Proposals for modifications shall be priced in the same manner as submitted under the original

Proposal. The Contractor shall use direct cost distribution rate (percentage markup) for overhead costs related to delays, which will be included in the coefficient.

2. Section 00 21 14 - Instructions to Bidders, Subsection Responsibility Determination is updated as follows:

c. In addition to the general standards in FAR 9.104-1 to be determined responsible, the prospective contractor must have completed all registration requirements for access to US government installation, equipment, and personnel in the US Government Information Technology (IT) Joint

Contingency and Expeditionary Services (JCXS) system containing the Joint Contingency

Contracting System (JCCS) module found at www.JCCS.gov. This registration shall be maintained throughout the performance of the contract.

3. Section 00 22 13 – Supplementary Instructions to Bidders, Subsection I. Attachments is updated to include to following attachment:

Attachment E - Mandatory Eligibility for Contract Award and Access to U.S. Government

Installation, Equipment, Personnel, and Information.

4. Section 00 22 13 – Supplementary Instructions to Bidders, Subsection D. Evaluation Factors for

Award, Solicitation Submittal Requirements / No. 3).

- FROM: “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.

- TO: “Letter from offeror’s surety or bank.” The letter is to verify the offeror has at least a $10M aggregate bonding capacity, or $2M a year.

5. Address and attach Pre Proposal Inquiries.

6. This amendment hereby closes to the response time for any additional Pre Proposal Inquiries.

7. Date Offers Due: Jul 18, 2025 01:00 pm CEST.

ATTACHMENT E

MANDATORY ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD AND ACCESS TO U.S.

GOVERNMENT INSTALLATION, EQUIPMENT, PERSONNEL, AND INFORMATION

(a) The prime contractor shall complete all registration requirements for access in the US Government

Information Technology (IT) Joint Contingency and Expeditionary Services (JCXS) system containing the

Joint Contingency Contracting System (JCCS) module located at www.jccs.gov. This registration shall be maintained throughout the performance of the contract. Failure of registration for the prime contractor could result in a determination by the Contracting Officer of non-responsibility under FAR 9.

(i) U.S. Commanders possess inherent authority to maintain law and order, provide security, and impose discipline necessary to protect the inhabitants of U.S. and Coalition installations, U.S. personnel operating outside of installations, and U.S. funded developmental projects in the entire USCENTCOM AOR. This authority allows commanders to administratively and physically control access to installations, vessels, properties, personnel, equipment, and/or project sites, and to bar contractors, and any employees, from an installation or site. A commander’s inherent force protection (FP) authority is independent of an agency’s contracting authority, and it may not be superseded by any contractual term or provision.

(ii) The prime Contractor/Vendor acknowledges that: submission of a bid, offer, or a proposal; acceptance of contract award of any type; or continuing effort under any contract that includes this language; requires that the Contractor/Vendor under any affected contracts be initially eligible -- and remain eligible during the entire period of contract performance to include any warranty period -- for access to a U.S. installations, vessels, properties, personnel, equipment, and/or. As part of the responsibility determination in accordance with FAR Part 9, prior to awarding a contract in the USCENTCOM AOR, all contacting activities shall verify that the Awardee has completed all registration requirements in JCCS.gov and is determined eligible for access.

(iii) Access determinations arise from the Combatant Commander’s (or the designated cognizant commander’s) inherent authority and are separate and distinct from any law, regulation, or policy regarding suspension and debarment authority. Contractor queries or requests for reconsideration related to U.S.

installation base or vessel access eligibility must be directed to the authority responsible for their respective access decisions.

Date Submitted Question Response Amendement

19-Jun-25

Consistent with “America First”, will the procurement be restricted to only US firms rather than to uncleared Foreign owned firms like current JOC contractor KOOHEJI CONTRACTORS W.L.L performing under N3319121D4000?. Award of this contract to a US firm rather than to a Foreign Owned Firm as is the current scenario for the longest will ensure that USG $$ / Profits reach back to United States. America benefits as American firms like us and our US employees pay Taxes to United States and make further investments in United States with earned profits / income. This is not the case for a Foreign Owned Firm like Kooheji who do not pay United States Taxes and do not make any investments in United States with the profits earned from USG remain in Bahrain or other Foreign Country thereby not Benefiting United States in the form of US Taxes / Investments from Profits.

For example per USASpending.gov - Kooheji received so far $21.7 Million in terms of obligated funding for this contract alone with nothing literally coming back to United States in the form of Taxes on Profits, Investments in United States and Jobs created in United States. This is a fact, and it appears has been ignored by NAVFAC EURAFCENT per business as usual mindset without protecting United States and United States Businesses who pay taxes, invests in America from profits earned from USG contracts along with their US employees. Given this, will acquisition officials of NAVFAC EURAFCENT take this into account and restrict this to only qualified US firm to benefit United States by letting a US firm plough back the profits back to United States paying taxes, making investments and creating jobs in United States with their US employees to paying taxes rather than business as usual of awarding such large Prime Contracts to uncleared foreign entities like Kooheji who pay zero taxes and zero investments and zero jobs in United States despite at least $21.6 Million obligated funding on just one incumbent contract N3319121D4000 alone?

Should this request be not acceded by NAVFAC EURAFCENT and still be open to uncleared Foreign Owned firms like Kooheji, will it please explain why not as obvious benefits to United States in the form of Taxes, Investments and Job creation in United States as outlined above appears to have no impact on the Acquisition Officials of NAVFAC EURAFCENT tasked to protect the best interest of United States? Kindly also keep in mind that a US firm is always subject to US Laws with accountability worldwide unlike Foreign Owned firms who can only be held accountable per US Laws in US but not necessarily in a Foreign Country.

The Government will comply with all applicable laws, regulations and policy in soliciting and awarding this contract. This contract is being solicited on a full and open basis.

19-Jun-25

Will the Govt kindly outline how it will implement fair labor practices and Anti-Human Trafficking of Labor by Foreign Owned firms like incumbent JOC contractor KOOHEJI CONTRACTORS W.L.L who based on my first-hand knowledge keep passports of their staff (as reported to me by some of their staff as standard employment practice violating United States / CENTCOM regulations? Will NAVFAC stop ignoring this practice and have in place a mechanism to prevent this?

All firms shall comply with DFARS 252.222-7002, Compliance with Local labor laws (Overseas) and 52.222-50 Combating Trafficking in Persons throughout the duration of the contract. Anyone with evidence that a US Government contractor is failing to comply with such requirements should report such failures to the cognizant contracting officer, the Office of the Naval Inspector General, and/or the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

19-Jun-25

3. Page 8 of 57 - 3. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor. a. PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS (Volume I – Price Proposal) 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. Although we have a significant NAVFAC EURAFCENT CM / ET Services, in the entire AOR including Bahrain / UAE, we are currently performing Turnkey Design / Build Commercial Construction / Real Estate Development leveraging our deep knowledge of NAVFAC Standards and UFC far exceeding the scope of JOC work - Category III and IV with no design requirement as a Self-Insured entity with no need for a Surety Firm as we have the assets Bahrain and US to cover any risks - at least $2M a year - proof of such funds shall be provided. Hence currently we do not have a Surety firm as we have internal cash to manage risks. Given this, will our proposal still be considered for award should we not be able to submit a letter from a surety firm as we have none at this time but have the cash resources exceeding $2 Million the proof of such will be submitted? We can obtain a surety should there be a need post-award but don't see such a need as we are a self-insured entity with adequate cash resources exceeding $2 Million to be able to undertake the risk ourselves without the need for a surety firm. Kindly clarify.

Letter from offeror’s surety or bank. This letter from the surety is to verify the offeror has at least a $10M aggregate bonding capacity, or $2M a year. Alternatively, since this contract will permit the offeror to provide performance guarantees in lieu of bonds, the offeror may provide a letter from its bank. That bank letter must verify that the offeror has sufficient assets on deposit with the bank to support an aggregate of $10M in performance guarantees.

19-Jun-25

4. Page 8 of 57 - 3. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor. a. PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS (Volume I – Price Proposal) 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 How much availability of working/operating capital needs to be shown to satisfy this requirement as a risk-mitigation?

There is no specific minimum amount of working/operating capital that the Government requires. The Government is merely seeking to see that the offeror has adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them.

19-Jun-25

1. Experience working on JOC contracts. We are yet to be awar5ded a JOC Contract(s) by USG. However our scope of Design-Build Construction work in Bahrain (shall be shown in Experience) far exceeds the minimal minor JOC construction work - Category III and IV - $50,000 Construction Value including Be for renovation; repair; maintenance; replacement;

alteration; demolition; or construction tasks performed under a single order or contract.

Given this, will the Govt not give extra credit for 1. Experience working on JOC contracts. and remove this as it shall provide no additional benefit to the Govt should there be a bidder like us far exceeding the JOC contract scope and give an unfair advantage to the current JOC contractor KOOHEJI CONTRACTORS W.L.L performing under N3319121D4000 making it appear that 9t has been "wired" for Kooheji?

No, the Government will not change this language. JOCs have unique features, such as joint scoping and coefficient pricing, which makes prior experience with JOCs valuable to the Government. Previous JOC experience is not required to be awarded the contract. The Government reserving the right to give additional consideration to experience with the exact type of contract being solicited does not provide any offeror with an unfair advantage.

19-Jun-25

6. Page 14 of 57 - 3. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor. b. NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS (Volume II – Non-Price Proposal) FACTOR 4 – FACTOR 4, PAST PERFORMANCE: Understand that in the absence of CPARS, a PPQ maybe submitted. Can a PPQ be submitted for the same work by the same customer that has been submitted for recent RFP - Bahrain MACC without the need to have the same customer(s) submit the same PPQ for the same work again on the PPQ form of this RFP when the same information is already outlined in the recent PPQ for the same work for recently closed Bahrain MACC? Or does the Govt. require that the PPQ must be for this RFP only requiring the customer to again respond when such is not necessary when a PPQ is already available and has been submitted for recently closed RFP - Bahrain MACC?

Please see the note on the PPQ form itself, "NOTE: NAVFAC REQUESTS THAT

THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY

BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED

QUESTIONNAIRE TO NAVFAC WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY

DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON

NAVFAC SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO

SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER,

QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO NAVFAC. PLEASE

CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR NAVFAC POC INFORMATION. THE

GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL

INFORMATION ON THIS FORM." As already noted under Factor 4, “Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs.”

19-Jun-25

7. Page 30 of 57 - Insurance Requirement: Since this work is OCONUS, unless there is a waiver by DOL (none for Bahrain UAE), will the Govt. clarify / incorporate the requirement of Defense Base Act (DBA) insurance as such is mandatory for all USG work OCONUS sans an country wavers that does n appear to include Bahrain / UAE and incorporated as an Amendment? If a firm currently already has DBA in place, will thus be given an extra credit in terms of evaluation factor for award and incorporated as an Amendment?

The DBA clause 52.228-3 Worker's Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act) JUL 2014, is already incorporated by reference into the soliciation under Section 00 72 00 - General Conditions. No change to the RFP is required. 0003

19-Jun-25

8. Page 34 of 57: C 14.4 - Security Requirements: Taking into account the need to protect USG Navy interests, will the Govt restrict this procurement to Cleared US Firms who are vetted and cleared to access classified space / data upon issuance of a DD 254 rather than to make it open tp unvetted /uncleared foreign owned firms like the incumbent JOC contractor KOOHEJI CONTRACTORS W.L.L performing under N3319121D4000 who cannot obtain any access to classified space / data and therefore a very risk to USG especially in time of heightened war-like situation in this CENTCOM AOR? Cleared firms like us upon issuance of a DD 254 can escort uncleared personnel with cleared personnel with PCL should it be necessary that a Foreign Owned firm cannot - the Govt would have to provide such escorts and therefore an added burden on the Govt.

A cleared US firm is accountable and can be held accountable by USG for any security breach / lapse anywhere in the world that an uncleared Foreign Owned Firm cannot be outside United States especially from a practical standpoint. How will spillage be handled for an uncleared foreign owned firm? What recourse has USG got especially in this sensitive CENTCOM AOR as an impending warzone to protect classified space / data by allowing a foreign owned firm like Kooheji access to classified or even restricted sensitive areas of US Navy installation on-base and outside in Bahrain / UAE? Sensitive information also includes base maps, building locations, utility information whose disclosure to an uncleared / unvetted Foreign Entity like Kooheji possesses grave security risk to United States that must be addressed. Given this unmitigated risk to United States in this sensitive zone will the Govt restrict this procurement to only cleared US Firms up to TS FCL or at least up to Secret that a Foreign owned firm like Kooheji is not able to obtain?

No, this procurement will not be restricted to only cleared US firms. The Government does not anticipate issuing task orders that require cleared contractors. The Government will comply with all applicable laws, regulations and policy in soliciting and awarding this contract. Vetting requirements as added by this amendemnt.

19-Jun-25

9. Page 34 of 57: C 14.4 - Security Requirements: c. Do not disclose any information to any person not entitled to receive it.

Failure to safeguard any classified information that may come to the Contractor or any person under his control, may subject the Contractor, his agents or employees to criminal liability under 18 U.S.C., Sections 793 and 798 Following up to my previous question, it appears that there is a possibility of accessing classified information and hence is the need to safeguard.

An uncleared foreign entity like Kooheji cannot be given access to any classified space / information under any circumstances.

Given this, will this procurement be restricted to only cleared US firms with issuance of a DD 254 for access to classified space / information? Given this apparent casual approach in terms of security by allowing uncleared foreign entities like Kooheji to perform as a Prime Contractor for this JOC work in these sensitive installations in Bahrain / JOC with possible access to classified information that must not be disclosed to such foreign owned entities, will NAVFAC EURAFCENT look into this seriously to see if any such classified information has been disclosed to uncleared Kooheji and other foreign owned firms and take corrective steps to ensure no spillage occurs anymore or any sensitive data be not disclosed anymore with this procurement be now restricted to cleared US firms only?

No, this procurement will not be restricted to only cleared US firms. The government does not anticipate issuing task orders that require cleared contractors.

19-Jun-25

10. Page 34 of 57: C.14.6 Installation Access Badges: In compliance with CENTCOM requirements, will all personnel working on this contract irrespective of citizenship be required to be issued a LOA from DOD SPOT signed by the KO? Will at least some of the Personnel especially Key / Management Personnel working on this contract be issued CAC for access and escort staff as necessary? Will at least US Citizens working on this contract be issued CACs and be provided with NEX / MWR privileges etc as afforded to other OCONUS contractor employees?

SPOT LOAs will not be provided and CACs will not be issued to contractor's personnel.

19-Jun-25

11. Page 35 of 57: C.14.6 Installation Access Badges: NSA Bahrain Passes and Badges: Contractor employees and representatives performing work under this contract are required to be either United States citizens or documented legal residents. Will the Govt clarify if besides US Citizens, all other employees need to be Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR) of United States since only LPRs are documented legal residents of United States?

Contractor employees and representatives performing work under this contract are required to be either United States citizens or documented legal residents. A "documented legal resident” is defined as someone who is permitted to work in the country where services are performed under the terms of this contract in accordance with laws, regulations, permits, and licenses required of the host nation.