W912ER22R0019 Amendment 0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

J

PAGE OF PAGES

1 14

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

10-Nov-2021

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE W912ER 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6) CODE

W912ER DISTRICT (TAM), USACE

MIDDLE EAST DISTRICT (CETAM-CT)

PO BOX 2250

WINCHEST ER VA 22604-1450

See Item 6

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONT RACT OR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICIT AT ION NO.

W912ER22R0019

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Oct-2021

10A. MOD. OF CONT RACT /ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILIT Y CODE

11. T HIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENT S OF SOLICIT AT IONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X 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 telegramwhich 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 telegramor letter, provided each telegramor letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNT ING AND APPROPRIAT ION DAT A (If required)

13. T HIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICAT IONS OF CONT RACT S/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES T HE CONT RACT /ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. T HIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT T O: (Specify authority) T HE CHANGES SET FORT H IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN T HE

CONT RACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. T HE ABOVE NUMBERED CONT RACT /ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT T HE ADMINIST RAT IVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORT H IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO T HE AUT HORIT Y OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. T HIS SUPPLEMENT AL AGREEMENT IS ENT ERED INT O PURSUANT TO AUT HORIT Y OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

See Block 14 SF-30 Continuation Page

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 CONT RACT ING OFFICER (Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

15B. CONT RACT OR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNIT ED ST AT ES OF AMERICA

BY

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

10-Nov-2021

EXCEPT ION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

30-105-04 ST ANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

W912ER22R0019

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following have been added by full text:

CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

CONTINUATION PAGE

The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate the following revisions:

1. Proposal Due Date Change

Proposal due date changed from 12 November 2021 10:00 AM EST to 03 December 2021 10:00 AM EST.

2. Bonding Requirements Changes – Section 00 21 16 Paragraph 7.3.1

b. Bonding Capability. Submit proof of offeror's ability to obtain acceptable surety in the form of performance and payment bonds, Irrevocable Letters of Credit, or other surety as described in FAR Part 28. The surety bond provider or bank shall attest to the offeror’s ability to obtain bonding or a satisfactory Irrevocable Letter of Credit (ILC) for not less than $3.5 million coverage for each year of the seven-year MATOC performance period, which includes all option years. The contractor will be required to provide a bond or ILC in the amount of 20% of the task order amount for each awarded task order. Acceptable proof of the offeror's ability to obtain acceptable surety includes the following:

(a) a letter of commitment from a surety contained on the Department of Treasury Circular 570 list if performance and payment bonds will be provided or

(b) a letter of commitment from a Federally Insured Financial Institution if an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (ILC) is contemplated or

(c) a statement providing evidence of adequate financial assets in the name of the offeror and a signed statement from an person with authority to bind the offeror that those assets will be available to meet the security requirements for performance and payment bonds awarded to the offeror if a certified check will be provided. Include the name, address and telephone number of the firm's bonding company. Bonding information shall include the offeror's current single and aggregate performance and payment bond limits.

3. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 12-Nov-2021 10:00 AM to 03-Dec-2021 10:00 AM.

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

SECTION 00 21 16 - PHASE I

1.0 OVERVIEW

The intent of this solicitation is to select up to five (5) contractors, but the USG reserves the right to award more, less, or none at all for the Firm Fixed Price Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOCs) for design-build, design-bid-build and site-adapt Construction Services for projects within the Transatlantic Division Area or Responsibilities (AOR).

This is a two-phase procurement and the basis of award is the Best Value Trade-Off Process. Potential offerors are invited to submit the information described in this Section 00 21 16 for review and evaluation by the Government.

Following completion of the evaluation of Phase I, up to a maximum of ten (10) most highly qualified offerors will be selected to participate in Phase II. The selected offerors for Phase II will be invited to submit the information described in Section 00 22 16 for Phase II, for review and evaluation by the Government. Price will be evaluated in Phase II through use of a seed project and binding contract rates.

2.0 SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS

Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's capability for successfully completing the solicited project. Requirements stated in this Request for Proposal (RFP) are minimums. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP.

Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror’s disqualification from award.

2.1 Offerors shall submit their proposals no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

NOTE: The Transatlantic Middle East District is in the Eastern Time Zone.

2.1.2 The Government is using a two-phase procurement approach for this Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) MATOC contract. For Phase I offerors are required to submit a proposal consisting of the information identified in paragraph 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 below. Phase I proposal sections should parallel the submission requirements identified herein.

2.1.3 Volume I for Phase I shall be submitted electronically and include the following information:

Volume I - Factor 1: Past Performance Element 1 - Prime Contractor Element 2 – A/E Designer of Record

Volume I - Factor 2: Management Approach Element 1 – Organization Management Element 2 - Subcontractor Management

2.1.4 Volume II for Phase I shall be submitted electronically and include the following information:

Volume II – Tab A: Standard Form 1442 Volume II – Tab B: Joint Venture Agreements Volume II – Tab C: Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability Volume II – Tab D: Pre-Award/Contractor Responsibility Information

NOTE: Phase I does NOT involve pricing submission.

3.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS

A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, and other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. The number and identities of offerors will not be revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein. After evaluating Phase I proposals, the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority shall select the most highly qualified offerors (not to exceed ten (10)), and request that only those offerors submit Phase II proposals. The basis of award in Phase II is a Best Value Trade-Off.

3.1.1 The evaluation process for Phase I essentially consists of two parts: 1. proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, and 2. past performance/technical evaluation.

3.1.2 Proposal Compliance Review and Responsibility Determination: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, and that the offeror is financially capable of sustaining performance under the contract and is able to obtain the required level of performance and payment bonds from an acceptable surety.

3.1.3 Past Performance/Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements.

Factor 1 – Past Performance will be rated based on overall confidence in the offeror’s performance (using Table 2, below), with the final confidence assessment rating based on the extent of recent, relevant past experience (using Table I, below), and the quality of the offeror’s performance on that experience.

Factor 2 – Management Approach, will be rated using an adjectival-based system (using Table 3, below).

The Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority with written recommendation from the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) will select up to a maximum of ten (10) most highly qualified offerors to continue on to Phase II. Phase I proposals will not be reevaluated in Phase II.

4.0 PHASE I – PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Phase I proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below, listed in relative order of importance.

Offerors are reminded to include their best technical approach in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government intends to select the most highly qualified offerors to advance to Phase II without additional discussions, unless it is in the best interest of the Government to do so. The Government reserves the right to have such discussions with some, all, or none of the offerors. Such discussions are not subject to FAR 15.306.

Volume I – Factor 1: Past Performance 1st

a. Prime Contractor Equal to A/E

b. A/E Designer of Record Equal to Prime

Volume I – Factor 2: Management Approach 2nd

Volume II – Pro Forma Information

Tab A Standard Form 1442 Not Rated Tab B Joint Venture Agreements Not Rated Tab C Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding Not Rated and Proof of Financial Ability Tab D Pre-Award/Contractor Responsibility Information Not Rated

4.1.1 Ratings:

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

TABLE 1

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

TABLE 2

Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Definition 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.

TABLE 3

Management Approach Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

Unsatisfactory Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

4.1.2 Definitions:

a. Significant Strength. An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

b. Strength. An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

c. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

d. Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

e. 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. See FAR 15.001.

f. Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror 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).

g. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

5.0 PHASE I - VOLUME I PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

FACTORS

Note: Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details in their Phase 1 proposals, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of Phase 1 proposals. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to Phase 1. The Government may evaluate Phase 1 proposals as submitted, without further exchanges. However, the Government reserves the right to talk with, or otherwise contact, offerors during Phase 1 and to request additional information for Phase 1 proposal revisions, if determined to be necessary and in the best interests of the Government. The Government reserves the right to have such exchanges with some, all, on none of the offerors. Such exchanges are not subject to FAR 15.306.

5.1 FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1.1 Proposal Submission Requirements. The offeror’s proposal shall address the following:

5.1.2 Element 1: Prime Contractor

Provide descriptions of a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) projects completed by the prime contractor within the last 6 years of the solicitation issuance date, or currently under construction and at least 75% complete as of the solicitation issuance date, that are similar in size and scope, as defined below in paragraphs 5.1.3 and 5.1.4. Projects completed more than 6 years before the solicitation issuance date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. An Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project.

Task orders may NOT be combined in order for the project to be considered similar. The offeror may include pictures. The Project Overview Sheet (Attachment 1) and the Project Summary Form (Attachment2) are for your convenience.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, including, but not limited to, teaming partners, subcontractors, sister or parent companies, and affiliates will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture (JV) agreement. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the JV shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM).

However, each party of the JV must submit their own Unique Entity Identifier Number (UEIN) with the JV proposal. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a JV for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the JV may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the JV will not exceed five (5).

5.1.3 Projects considered similar in size shall be a minimum of 15,000 square feet. This square footage may be a combination of multiple facilities, provided all work was completed under a single contract action.

5.1.4 Projects considered similar in scope include, but are not limited to renovation or new construction of command and control facilities, training facilities, administration facilities, aircraft hangars, medical facilities, maintenance and repair facilities, warehouses, utilities infrastructure, fuel distribution and storage systems, road construction and airfields pavement. These projects shall have been constructed using the Design Bid Build (D-B- B) and Design Build (D-B) approaches, with no more than 2 having been projects constructed using the D-B approach.

5.1.5 The prime contractor must have self-performed at least 20% of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees to be considered similar.

5.1.6 The following information shall be provided for each project:

a. Project Title, Contract Number, and Location.

b. Current percentage of construction complete and when it was or will be completed.

c. For projects that are not yet complete, provide description of work remaining to be completed.

d. Scope of the project, to include purpose/use of facility.

e. Size of the project; differentiate square footage of new construction versus renovation (if the project includes both).

f. Type and percentage of work that was self-performed.

g. Whether the project was design-build or design-bid-build.

h. Customer Primary Point of Contact and alternate POC shall be English speaking (name, relationship to project, agency/firm affiliation, city, state, current and correct phone number, and current and correct email address).

5.1.7 The Government places a greater weight on the relevancy on projects that demonstrate successful past performance in the following order of precedence:

a. Construction projects completed within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

b. Construction projects completed on a Saudi Arabian Military Base.

c. Construction projects completed in other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates).

d. Renovation or new construction for USACE.

e. Projects such as command and control facilities, training facilities, administration facilities, aircraft hangars, medical facilities, maintenance and repair facilities, warehouses, utilities infrastructure, fuel distribution and storage systems, road construction and airfield pavement.

f. Demonstrated experience with procurement of long lead-time items.

g. Demonstrated experience with Primavera P6 scheduling software.

h. Projects completed using the Design Build (D-B) approach.

5.1.8 For this factor, also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. which support past performance on these projects. Any of this information that is submitted shall clearly identify to which of the submitted projects it pertains. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 3) is attached for your convenience. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency from the reference.

NOTE: The page limit for Factor 1, Element 1, is no more than fifteen (15) pages total. Any pages that exceed the specified limits will NOT be reviewed. The separate pages for ratings, letters awards, pictures and Attachments 1, 2 and 3, will not be included in the fifteen (15)-page limitation.

FALSIFIED PPQs MAY BE GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF AN OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL, REFERRAL OF THE OFFEROR FOR DEBARMENT, AND REFERRAL OF THE OFFEROR TO THE

APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITY.

5.1.9 Element 2: Designer of Record (DOR)

Provide descriptions of a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) projects that have been completed within the last six (6) years of the solicitation issuance date, or currently under construction and at least 75% complete as of the solicitation issuance date, that are similar in size and scope as defined in paragraphs 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 above, on which the proposed A/E firm was the DOR. Projects completed more than 6 years before the solicitation issuance date may be considered for evaluation purposes but may lessen the overall relevancy rating for that project. Only one (1) DOR shall be submitted for past performance. The proposed A/E firm shall be used to the greatest extent possible for the MATOC awarded under this solicitation. Deviations may be permitted with prior approval from the Contracting Officer. Any changes of the DOR must meet or exceed the same minimum qualifications standards as stated in the specification document SPEC DIV 1 section 1.2.

5.10 The following information shall be provided for each project:

a. Project Title, Contract Number, and Location.

b. Whether the project was design-build or design-bid-build.

c. Scope of the project, to include purpose/use of facility.

d. Size of the project; differentiate square footage of new construction versus renovation (if the project includes both).

e. DOR’s role and activities on each project.

f. Customer Primary Point of Contact and alternate POC shall be English speaking (name, relationship to project, agency/firm affiliation, city, state, current and correct phone number, and current and correct email address).

NOTE: The page limit for Factor 1, Element 2, is no more than fifteen (15) pages total. Any pages that exceed the specified limits will NOT be reviewed. The separate pages for Attachments 1, 2, and 3, including any pictures provided, will not be included in the fifteen (15)-page limitation.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA, ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DESCRIPTIONS

5.2.1 For both the Prime and DOR, the SSEB will first evaluate if the past performance is recent. Next, the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to paragraphs 5.1.2 and 5.1.9 above will be determined. By using the criteria identified above, the SSEB will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the scope, size, and complexities of the solicited project. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table below.

5.2.2 A “recent” project is defined as a construction project which has been completed within the last 6 years of the solicitation issuance date, or is currently under construction and at least 75% complete as of the solicitation issuance date.

5.2.3 For both the Prime and DOR, the SSEB will next review the quality of performance on those projects. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government reserves the right to review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including projects other than those submitted by the offeror. The Government will, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

5.2.4 The SSEB will review all past performance information collected for both the Prime and DOR. The SSEB will determine the quality of both the Prime’s and DOR’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), 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. The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the above TABLE 2, Performance Confidence Assessment, based on the SSEB’s assessment of (1)the degree of the offeror’s recent, relevant experience, and (2) how well the offeror performed that experience.

6.0 PHASE I - VOLUME I PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

FACTORS

6.1 FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

6.1.1 Proposal Submission Requirements. The offeror’s proposal shall address the following:

6.1.2 Element 1: Organization Management

Provide a narrative that describes the management process that will be used to manage multiple projects in widely separated areas in Saudi Arabia. The offeror’s team shall specifically include team of Base Access Coordinators.

The team shall include a sufficient amount of Base Access Coordinators to ensure that base access management across all regions of KSA can be conducted simultaneously without interruption. All Base Access Coordinators shall be fluent in both English and Arabic.

6.1.3 The narrative shall:

a. Address project organization, including defining the roles, responsibilities, and authority to be delegated to the staff in each position, including, but not limited to the Corporate Leadership, Program Manager, Quality Control Manager, Site Safety and Occupational Health Officer (SSHO)Superintendent, Procurement/Contracts Manager, Logistics Manager (or equivalent type of position with similar duties);

b. Discuss how work flows through the organization;

c. Identify all of the major components of the team for the project and explain how their work will be integrated into the overall scope;

d. Explain the offeror’s understanding of requirements for obtaining base access passes for personnel and equipment, (DO NOT include any personal information if providing a sample for personnel access); and

e. In the event the Offeror uses outside professional design services in the execution of these task orders, the Offeror shall describe the interface process with this/these entities. This shall include description of lines of communication/reporting into the Offeror's organization, and what services the Offeror might contemplate the use of an outside firm to accomplish. Examples may include development of Design Build (D-B) submittals, shop drawing details, as-built drawings, Pre- Engineered Building design quality assurance, and/or other Quality Assurance services. In the event the Offeror does not contemplate the use of these services, it shall be stated as such, subject to further understanding of follow-on task order requirements.

NOTE: The page limit for Factor 2, Element 1, is no more than ten (10) pages total. Any pages that exceed the specified limits will NOT be reviewed.

6.1.4 Provide an organizational chart for this project showing:

a. Home office support, on-site management and the responsible chain of command.

b. The organizational chart must clearly delineate on-site from off-site personnel.

c. On-site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager and Staff, Safety, DOR, and USACE shall be included in the chart.

d. The Organization Chart shall include titles and explanations of the responsibilities and authorities for key personnel in the home office, support office, and site offices.

e. The organization chart shall clearly identify where positions/personnel are located and whether filled by the Prime Contractor or their subcontractor’s personnel.

f. The roles of any Joint Venture partners and/or major subcontractors (i.e. subcontractors performing electrical, mechanical, civil, or communications work) must be clearly stated in this section.

NOTE: The organizational chart will not be counted as part of the ten (10)-page limit.

6.1.5 Element 2: Subcontractor Management

The offeror shall submit a Subcontractor Management Plan which describes its plans for implementing and maintaining oversight and management of subcontractors to ensure performance is consistent with contract requirements.

6.1.6 Additionally, the Subcontractor Management Plan shall be specific and provide:

a. An overview of the offeror’s corporate management philosophy regarding the use of subcontractors.

b. Describe the offeror’s relationships with subcontractors on previous projects and specifically its plan and past experience to address non-performing subcontractors.

c. The offeror shall describe its capability and intent to comply with the requirements and include a general description of the work the offeror will self-perform.

NOTE: The page limit for Factor 2, Element 2, is no more than ten (10) pages total. Any pages that exceed the specified limits will NOT be reviewed.

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA, ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DESCRIPTIONS

6.2.1 The Government will evaluate an offeror’s management approach based on the following aspects:

6.2.2 Element 1: Organization Management

a. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Organization narrative. The offeror’s narrative will be evaluated based on the clarity, adequacy, capabilities and strengths of the offeror’s organization for managing a successful project.

b. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Organization Chart. The offeror’s organizational chart will be evaluated based on the clarity, adequacy, and understanding of the organizational controls (i.e. chain of command) required for managing a successful project. An organizational chart that clearly depicts a highly qualified on-site team supported by appropriate resources off-site and that clearly defines responsibilities will be considered to meet the RFP requirements. Charts that are confusing, cluttered with duplicative entries, or that do not clearly define responsibilities will be considered to not meet the RFP requirements.

6.2.3 Element 2: Subcontractor Management

a. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s overall plan to manage subcontractors’ performance and to integrate subcontractors into the project team. Plans will be evaluated based on the level of involvement the offeror will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the work performed by subcontractors.

6.2.4 Management Approach: adjectival ratings are listed and defined above in TABLE 3, the Combined Technical/Risk Rating table. These ratings will be used to evaluate consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies to determine an overall technical rating for FACTOR 2. Elements will not be separately rated.

7.0 Volume II – Pro Forma Information

7.1 Tab A – Standard Form 1442

7.1.1 Submission Requirements: The offeror shall complete and submit the Standard Form 1442.

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria: The Standard Form 1442 will not be rated. The form will be reviewed to determine if required information is provided, amendments are acknowledged, and the offer signed.

7.2 Tab B – Joint Venture Agreements

7.2.1 Submission Requirements: If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a joint venture (JV), then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a legal entity separate from the individual joint venture members. However, each member of the JV must submit its own Unique Entity Identifier (UEIN).

7.2.2 Evaluation Criteria: This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated. Joint Venture Agreements must comply with the relevant regulations.

7.3 Tab C - Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability

7.3.1 Submission Requirements:

a. Financial Capability. Submit Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities). Include the name, address and telephone number of firm's banking institution.

b. Bonding Capability. Submit proof of offeror's ability to obtain acceptable surety in the form of performance and payment bonds, Irrevocable Letters of Credit, or other surety as described in FAR Part 28. The surety bond provider or bank shall attest to the offeror’s ability to obtain bonding or a satisfactory Irrevocable Letter of Credit (ILC) for not less than $3.5 million coverage for each year of the seven-year MATOC performance period, which includes all option years. The contractor will be required to provide a bond or ILC in the amount of 20% of the task order amount for each awarded task order. Acceptable proof of the offeror's ability to obtain acceptable surety includes the following:

(a) a letter of commitment from a surety contained on the Department of Treasury Circular 570 list if performance and payment bonds will be provided;

or

(b) a letter of commitment from a Federally Insured Financial Institution if an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (ILC) is contemplated;

or

(c) a statement providing evidence of adequate financial assets in the name of the offeror and a signed statement from an person with authority to bind the offeror that those assets will be available to meet the security requirements for performance and payment bonds awarded to the offeror if a certified check will be provided. Include the name, address and telephone number of the firm's bonding company. Bonding information shall include the offeror's current single and aggregate performance and payment bond limits.

NOTE: Bank Letter of Guarantees will not be accepted.

7.3.2 Evaluation Criteria: This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey. This requirement is not listed as an evaluation factor and will not be rated. However, an offeror that fails to demonstrate satisfactory financial capability to perform the solicitation requirements and provide acceptable proof of their ability to obtain the required surety, will not be eligible to advance to Phase II of the competition.

7.4 Tab D – Pre-Award/Contractor Responsibility Information

7.4.1 Submission Requirements:

a. The offeror shall submit one completed copy of Section 00 45 00, Representations and Certification.

b. The offeror shall submit the following:

1) Number of years the firm has been in business

2) Name, address and telephone numbers of two credit/trade references

3) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value

c. The offeror shall submit the name, address, and UEIN number for any and all A-E subcontractors identified in the proposal.

d. Contractor Responsibility Offerors are advised that the Contracting Officer will conduct a responsibility determination prior to award of a contract. Determinations of responsibility involve subjective business judgments that are within the broad discretion of the contracting agency. The Contracting Officer is vested with broad discretion in exercising the business judgment involved in a responsibility determination.

The offeror will be required to respond to a Questionnaire which will be provided with the RFP. This Questionnaire is not an additional non-pricing factor; the information requested pertains to the offeror’s ability to perform the contract (if awarded) rather than the acceptability of the offer presented. Your responses to the Questionnaire will assist the Contracting Officer in making their responsibility determination.

In addition, offerors shall provide a copy of its current First Category licensure to perform construction projects in Saudi Arabia. This includes providing a copy of Grade 1 licensure, according to the Contractors’ Classification System, for the following types of work: electrical, mechanical/HVAC, civil, and communications, whether self- performed or performed by a major subcontractor.

7.4.2 Evaluation Criteria: This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

(End of Summary of Changes)