Questions and Answers - August 1 2023.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 34 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Solicitation for ESC Teaming Partner Acquisition
- Solicitation number
- 6973GH-23-R-00148
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a solicitation for an ESC Teaming Partner Acquisition. The solicitation is seeking proposals for IT and related support services to supplement the Federal Aviation Administration's ESC program. Key details include that the solicitation is a Best Value procurement using a BPA with subsequent call orders. Proposals are due by August 11, 2023 at 3:00 PM CST and the period of performance is one base year with four optional one-year extensions. The solicitation involves tasks related to PRISM/Delphi deployments, migrations, and other potential IT projects. Labor categories and pricing are to be provided using the attached rate sheets, with an estimated ceiling amount to be determined. The Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Franchise Acquisition Services is the contracting agency.
View the file
Other files
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ALL Questions
| # | Question | Reference Page # | REMARKS | |
| 1 | Please clarify whether NAICS code 541990 or 541519 is being used. | Soliciation, page 1 shows 541990 | ||
| SAM.gov classification shows 541519 | SIR has been revised: 541519 Other Computer Related Services | |||
| 2 | There is a discrepancy in the Key Personnel resumes. | |||
| Can the government confirm that the 3 required are: Project Manager, Information Engineer III, and Functional Analyst III? | SIR p. 73 Section M, Factor 3: Experience of Key Personnel |
For this effort, Key Personnel are designated as the Project Manager, Information Engineer III, and Functional Analyst III.
Exactly three (3) resumes, as listed in the table below, are to be submitted at the time of proposal.
p.74 lists requirements for:
| The Applications Engineer II and Application Systems Analyst III, Agile Release Train Engineer | Page 74 of the SIR has been revised to show Project Manager, Information Engineer III, and Functional Analyst III. | ||
| 3 | Will the government supply the sample resume template? | SIR p. 73 Section M, Factor 3: Experience of Key Personnel | |
| Offerors shall use the sample resume format at Attachment L.5 of the SIR/RFP for submission of resumes for Key Personnel. | Page 73 of the SIR has been revised to list resume details | ||
| 4 | There is a discrepancy in the font size and spacing requirements in the 2 sections. |
a) should font size be no smaller than 11 or 12?
b) should all volumes be double spaced?
c) do resumes need to be double spaced?
d) can tables and graphics be single spaced and a smaller font?
e) can tables and graphics be of a different font type than Times New Roman? L.8-1 GENERAL, Section d.2 p. 62 and L.8-2 PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION (h) p. 64
a) SIR page 62, paragraph L.8-1(d)(2) has been revised to show 12 point font
b) Yes, see L.8.-2(h)
c) No, see L.8.-2(h)
d) Yes, see L.8.-2(h) e): Yes, see L.8.-2(h) 5 There are 2 sets of duplications (shown below) in PWS Section 1.4, however in SIR Section M, p. 73 Factor 2: Technical Approach – Rated, the list does not contain the duplications. Will the government confirm that offerors can structure our technical approach based on the list in Section M as opposed to the PWS that contains the duplication?
Based on Attch 2 - Pricing Schedule, it seems the 2nd set of tasks is for pricing the option years 2 through 4. Can the government confirm our understanding and that there is no difference in the scope of work between the 2 sets of duplicate tasks? PWS Section 1.4 Potential PRISM/Delphi Project List and SIR Section M, p. 73 Factor 2: Technical Approach – Rated
Task 3: ESC PRISM New Customer Deployments or Migrations Task 9: 2nd ESC PRISM New Customer Deployments or Migrations
Task 4: Delphi New Customer Deployments or Migrations
| Task 7: 2nd Delphi New Customer Deployments or Migrations | These are potential projects and while similar, Task 7 and 9 require a greater level of effort. They are also stand alone requirements for new customers. | ||
| 6 | Given that resumes are limited to 3 pages each, would government confirm that the certifying signatures and the statement regarding the veracity of the information can be captured in the commitment/resume validity letter instead of in the resume itself? | SIR, p. 73 Factor 3: Experience of Key Personnel, last sentence in 1st paragraph states: |
| “Resumes must be signed by the individual and the corporate representative certifying that the information reflects the actual qualifications and experience of the individual.” And 4th sentence in 2nd paragraph states: “A certified resume, at a minimum, must include a statement regarding the veracity of the information provided in the resume by the individual, with signature and date.” | No, this must be contained within the 3 page limit | |||
| 7 | Since this is a BPA and there is no issued BPA Call or work to be performed, would the government consider removing this specific sentence from the letters of commitment? | SIR, p. 73 Factor 3: Experience of Key Personnel, 2nd paragraph | ||
| “The letter must include commitment from the individual to perform the work (as required) for the duration of the base period of performance, as established in the PWS.” | SIR page 73 has been revised to state required commitment details. | |||
| 8 | Can the 3-page resumes be excluded from the overall 60 page count limit for the Technical Proposal and placed in an Appendix? | SIR Factor 3: Experience of Key Personnel – Unrated (Pass/Fail), p. 73 | No, resumes are to be included in the technical page count | |
| 9 | The rate table is asking for Regular rate and Premium rate. Each Task tab is asking for Average rate. Are we supposed to average the regular and premium rates to complete the average rate on each Task? | Attch 2 – Pricing Schedule, All Labor Categories tab | Attachment 2 has been revised to show Hourly Rates on the Task tabs while "Regular" and "Premium" are stand alone rates. |
Fill-ins have been highlighted.
| 10 | Estimated Contract Ceiling Amt tab, Task 10. Robotics shows quantity 3 Subject Matter Expert (SME) II and 1 SME III while the Task 10 tab shows hours for 3 SME I and 1 SME II. Which labor categories should be priced for Task 10? | Attch 2 – Pricing Schedule, Estimated Contract Ceiling Amt tab | The need for the requirement is listed on the Task 10 tab, this information will auto-fill the Estimated Contract Ceiling as appropriate. |
| 11 | The Travel Average Rate is not filled in for Task 1 but there are 12 hours shown. Should we input the average rate of $2500.00 for this item (same as the other tabs)? | Attch 2 – Pricing Schedule, Task 1 tab | Attachment 2 has been revised. |
| 12 | The All Labor Categories tab lists the Applications Engineer Test labor category, but there is no corresponding record in Attch 3 - Labor Categories and Skill Level Descriptions. What are the requirements / qualifications for this labor category or should it be removed? | Attch 2 – Pricing Schedule, All Labor Categories tab | Attachment 2 has been revised to remove "Test" from this labor category title. |
| 13 | The referenced section L.2 indicates "All Offeror questions, concerns, and clarification requests must be made in writing and received by 3:00 PM CST, August 11, 2023." Section L.3 (b) indicates "Proposals must be received by the CO no later than 3:00 pm CST on 8/11/2023." Please clarify or resolve as it appears questions are due no later than the same date and time as proposal submittal. | L - Instructions,Conditions, and Notices to Bidders |
L.2 POINT OF CONTACT, and
| L.3 L.3 PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS, (b) | SIR page 61, paragraph L.2 has been revised | |
| 14 | a) There appear to be discrepancies between the Table of Content items for section 6 Technical Requirements and the actual content of section 6 General Requirements, including potentially missing content. Please clarify or revise as appropriate. | |
| b) A similar concern also exists for sections 7 and 8. Please clarify or revise as appropriate. | Attch 1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf | |
| Table of Contents | Table of Content bookmarks have been updated |
15 The referenced section indicates "The intent is to provide supplemental support to ESC for short-term project needs throughout the period of performance."
a) Please clarify the services model that the government seeks, with respect to how subsequent call orders are to be put out for bidding. For example, will call orders have content from selected Tasks outlined at the BPA and not necessarily incorporate all Tasks? For another example, will the scope of call orders be oriented towards specific subsystems, applications, new capabilities or other considerations for PRISM/Delphi or is some other perspective to be applied in formulating the requirements per call order? Neither the PWS not Attachment 4 Call Ordering Procedure seem to provide any insight on these considerations.
b) With respect to "supplemental support ... for short term project needs throughout the period of performance" please provide clarification on the anticipated durations and frequencies to which Call Orders will be put out for bidding for these projects.
c) To allow for optimal formulation of a technical approach, estimates and pricing, please provide a timeline or timewise representation forecasting the comparative time frames to which specific call orders are to be put out.
| d) The government appears to contemplate a situation in which work may at best be episodic and not long duration in nature, nor have any specifically committed work for each awardee in the base period. Yet the government has identified three (3) Key Personnel and requires they remain committed through the base period of performance. At the same time, section 6.4.1 Key Personnel indicates that "Key personnel will be identified as required per each individual call order and required at time of proposal submission, as applicable." We highly recommend the government consider the Project Manager role as the only Key Personnel to provide at the BPA level. | Attch 1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf |
| 1.1 Introduction | a) These are potential projects, listed in general format to give bidders an idea of potential projects that are anticipated under this BPA in order to solicit ceiling pricing rates. The scope and other details will be provided with a formal Call Order - Request for Quote |
b) These estimates are represented in the Schedule B
c) These estimates are represented in the Schedule B
d) The individual call orders will contain more specific details, however the requirement for the key personnel will remain as written.
16 The section states "Contractor personnel must perform work as required to accomplish IT and related support services requirements of MMAC." In the subsequent section 1.4 Potential PRISM/Delphi Project List, the listed Tasks 1-10 are referred to as "... a non-conclusive list of potential projects, others may be required as requirements evolve during the BPA period of performance".
| a) Please clarify if currently or in the future, this BPA's scope includes operations and maintenance (O&M) work for the current PRISM/Delphi instantiation(s) at MMAC. In contrast, does the government procure O&M services, including application management services, under a separate contract or via its own employees? | Attch 1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf | ||
| 1.3 Scope of Work | No operations and maintenance (O&M) work will be covered under this BPA. There are different contracts that augment the federal team. | ||
| 17 | There does not appear to be any further detailed description of Task 1 - 10, nor any requirements specified for each discrete Task. Please clarify the specific description and requirements of each task, especially in light of the government's intent for evaluating responses set forth in file 6973GH-23-R-00148.pdf Solicitation, Offer and Award at section M.7 Technical Evaluation Factors for Factors 1 through 4, section M.8 Cost/Price/Business Proposal Evaluation, and section M.9 Past Performance Evaluation Rating. Said descriptions and requirements appear essential to providing a relevant and responsive proposal to the government and achieving a Best Value Selection Decision as indicated in section M.11. | Attch 1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf | |
| 1.4 Potential PRISM/Delphi Project List | These are potential projects, listed in general format to give bidders an idea of potential projects that are anticipated under this BPA in order to solicit ceiling pricing rates. The scope and other details will be provided with a formal Call Order - Request for Quote | ||
| 18 | Section M.7 Technical Evaluation Factors states "Proposals must address their technical approach for each item listed in the Performance Work Statement under PWS section 1.4." Please clarify the government's intended role for referenced sections, which includes certain requirements, within a proposal response. For example, does the government require that these be addressed as discrete services or capabilities the vendor must have and demonstrate in its response? If so where in its response and how will it contribute to evaluation and ratings? | Attch 1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf | |
| 6 General Requirements through to 11 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) | Reference Section M of the SIR | ||
| 19 | Reference is made to "the diversity of technology, technical expertise, performance/skill levels and turnaround times associated with the Government’s IT requirements". Similarly section 6.4.2 General requires "The contractor must provide employees proficient in a variety of IT environments for the labor categories identified in Attachment 5." |
a) Please provide technical information on the current IT environments, including those comprising and hosting PRISM/Delphi. Please ensure the provided information includes: environments by application , subsystem or system; hardware; software; node specifications and counts; integrations and interfaces; maximum and concurrent user counts; data volumetrics including current volume and growth rates; collaborating entities including application development teams, security teams and external entities; breakdown of historical service cases, incidents, responses, remedies and metrics; and additional technical constraints and nonfunctional requirements as appropriate to the government's requirements for identified tasks and services.
| b) Please also provide specifications on the available tools used for the current security and O&M of PRISM/Delphi, including those that may be available for building out, integrating with and implementing capabilities under the BPA. | Attch 1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf |
| 6.2 Program Requirements | Attachment 5 has been revised to read Attachment 3, this attachment lists the specific labor categories being requested. Therefore making the requests in a and b not necessary |
All necessary details will be released in the Call Order - Request for Quote
| 20 | Please provide a copy of the "existing QASP" to inform vendors' responses. | Attch 1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf | |
| 7.1 Government Quality Assurance | These are potential projects but if a Government Quality Assurance Plan is needed it will be provided with the Call Order - Request for Quote | ||
| 21 | a) In light of the questions and clarifications sought relative to the BPA's RFP material, and in light of the material impact to a vendor's attempt to respond to the BPA RFP especially given items 2, 4 and 5 raised above, we recommend the government issue a revised or amended set of BPA RFP material. We also recommend the government completely reset and restart the duration of the response period to begin once the amended material is made avalaible. |
b) Considering the breadth of the scope of work here and the requirement to have clients complete and return a Past Perfromance Questionnaire to the government, we request a further period of three (3) weeks be added to the time presently allocated for the proposal response period. With schools out, a lot of client and industry staff are on summer vacation with families. We would appreciate your consideration so that we can be responsive to your requirements for the BPA response. General a. Not necessary
b. Proposal due date has been extended.
| 22 | Is the vendor able to propose additional labor categories in relation to their technical approach, in response to the BPA or in response to subsequent call orders, beyond those listed here and also in Attch 3 - Labor Categories and Skill Level Descriptions.pdf? | Attch 1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf | |
| 1.3 Scope of Work | No, only those labor categories listed will be accepted for purposes of evaluation. |
23 a) Please confirm that the government will identify per call order, at the time the call order is put out to bid, what methodology will apply.
| b) Please also confirm that call orders requiring SAFe or other Agile methodologies will make use of Labor Hour (LH)/Time and Materials (T&M) and not Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracting. | Attch 1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf |
| 6.1 General | a. Confirmed |
b. The scope and other details will be provided with a formal Call Order - Request for Quote 24 a) We highly recommend that a vendor's demostrated capabilities for the requirements in this section be a part of the Factor 1: Corporate Technical Experience rating, given that Factor 2: Technical Approach focuses on PWS section 1.4 and likelihood of successful performance.
| b) Some of the requirements expressed in section 6.3.1 seem not directly applicable to PRISM/Delphi, such as for aviation safety, aviation regulation and certification. Please clarify applicability of the requirements with respect to ESC and PRISM/Delphi or to other systems, applications and environments to be supported under the BPA, and/or adjust the requirements as appropriate. | Attch 1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf |
| 6.3 Services | a. This requirement will remain as written. |
b. Paragrapgh 6.3 discusses the use of other theoretical projects to be under this BPA however every project aligns in some way to Delphi/PRISM.
25 a) Section 1.4 presents Tasks and Labor Categories. Section 6.3 presents services. Since the evaluation factors, as well as the required pricing, appear focused on and based on section 1.4, please clarify role of Section 6.3. For example, section 6 appears to name and identify services, but does not provide sufficiently detailed requirements to be met by the vendor, such that the content is suitable for bounding the level of effort required for estimating and pricing. Section 6, 7 and 8 also do not appear to be mentioned in any context having to do with evaluation.
| b) With the required pricing appearing to be based on Section 1.4, i.e., Tasks and Labor Categories, improved description of the Tasksalong with clear requirements to be met, is essential to vendors' efforts to determine technical approach, management approach, relevant past performance, key personnel, and pricing. Please provide sufficient information or clarification to allow vendors to be appropriately responsive and aligned to the government's requirements | Attch 1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf |
| 1.4 Potential PRISM/Delphi Project List | a. During the timeframe of this BPA, there may be other technology solutions and/or support needed to accommodate unforeseen emerging requirements and support to special projects. At this time there are no requirements for pricing of additional systems above what is listed. |
b. Specific requirements have not been defined given this is a list of "possible" projects. The technical approach is not baseed on specific requirements. General approach to such activities suffice.
| 26 | Labor Categories are referred as being "in Attachment 5" rather than Attachment 3. Please revise. | Attch 1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf | |
| 6.4.2 General | Revised to Attachment 3 | ||
| 27 | The listed Labor Categories includes one more labor category, the Applications Engineer Test, in contrast to Attachment 3. Please revise the appropriate material. | Attch 2 – Pricing Schedule | |
| All Labor Categories | See answer #12 | ||
| 28 | a) There does not appear to be sufficient instructions given with respect to how vendors are to complete and populate the Attachment 2. For example, into what fields must the vendor place there data? Where can vendors add or subtract items? We recommend the government provide improved instructions and incorporate FILL HIGHLIGHT for rows, columns and cells, to promote clarity as to how the attachment is to be completed. | Attch 2 – Pricing Schedule | |
| All Tabs | See answer #9 | ||
| 29 | b) Please clarify if the vendors are to populate only the Rates data on the All Labor Categories tab and not to populate any other items within the Price workbook. | Attch 2 – Pricing Schedule | |
| All Tabs | See answer #28 | ||
| 30 | b) The Price workbook appears to be intended to obtain a Rate Card and present both details and summary of Price, based on the government's prepopulated labor category selections, periods of performance, labor hours and travel funds, allowing for an apples-to-apples price comparison across vendors. Is that correct? If so, it would be instructive to the vendors for the government to also provide any formulae to be used in the evaluation process for Price, so that vendors can determine if their understanding of the government's intent is aligned with the manner in which they develop their technical approach to get to suitably offered rates for the labor categories. | Attch 2 – Pricing Schedule | |
| All Tabs | First question: Correct Second Question: The formulas are visible on the worksheet | ||
| 31 | c) Please clarify if the Travel funds depicted in the Price workbook are the actual budgets established for travel that the vendors may need to support their Technical Approach and use of actual resources that may need to travel for performance of services under the BPA. Please also clarify if Call Orders may provide additional travel budgets depending on the level of travel that may be required in each case. | Attch 2 – Pricing Schedule | |
| All Tabs | These are potential projects and the Travel line item is simply an estimate at this time. |
If necessary, Travel will be notated on each individual call order - request for quote and will be paid in accordance with travel reguations.
| 32 | d) A tab is labelled "Estimated Contract Ceiling Amt". Is this meant to be a summary tab based on application of each vendors provided rates on the All Labor Categories tab to the government provided items on the subsequent Task tabs, or is it intended that each vendor complete this tab, with summary Prices based on their own technical approach, estimates and price? Please clarify and provide instructions and/or formulae accordingly. | Attch 2 – Pricing Schedule | |||
| All Tabs | Yes, your first assumption is correct. | ||||
| 33 | e) On the Estimated Contract Ceiling Amt, what is the significance of the second table begining at A22? How are the various "1", "2" and "5" entries to be understood with respect to the successive Base Year and Option Years of the POP potentially being available for any call order that may be put out? | Attch 2 – Pricing Schedule | |||
| All Tabs | Schedule B has been revised. | ||||
| 34 | f) On the various Task specific tabs, the tables provided appear to be selective applications of labor to specific Base Year and Option Years of the POP. Is there implicit in this selection a government specified technical approach or alternatively a government forecasted timeline to which it intends the Tasks be executed? Is the vendor expected to make any modifications to this treatment? Will the government perform its own derivation of an "Average Rate" based on each vendor's provided rates? If so, what proporitional weighting will the government give to each of the two different rates that the vendors provide for each Labor Category? Please clarify. | Attch 2 – Pricing Schedule | |||
| All Tabs | See answer #33 | ||||
| 35 | g) The government has indicated in various ways in the other solicitation material for the BPA, that the Task list is not exhaustive and there may be variances in terms of additional items including at the call order level. How are the specific Task tabs, the manner in which they are populated, the particular selection of a subset of the discrete years of the POP, and the Estimated Contract Ceiling Amt tab to be understood in this light? This is a special concern given that the government contemplates the use of a hybrid contracting approach encompassing both Firm Fixed and Labor Hours/Time and Material treatments? | Attch 2 – Pricing Schedule | |||
| All Tabs | See answer #17 | ||||
| 36 | h) What is the relationship the government intends between the specific CLINs identified in the solicitation file, 6973GH-23-R-00148.pdf, and the Price workbook? It is not apparent how a vendor's proposed rates are associated with CLINs and how that is to be interpreted relative to the Estimated Contract Ceiling Amt tab. Please clarify. | Attch 2 – Pricing Schedule | |||
| All Tabs | See answer #33 | ||||
| 37 | It states that “text font size no less than 11”, but on Page 64 / L.8-2 it requires “no smaller than 12 point font”. We can always limit to 12, but would appreciate the small clarification. | Solicitation 6973GH-23-R-00148.pdf | |||
| 62 / L.8-1(d)(2) | See answer #4 | ||||
| 38 | It states that “Technical Approach demonstrates an overall likelihood of successful performance of all the requirements identified in the PWS”. For the items listed, must the Technical Approach address the technical requirements in section 6 of the PWS and specifically sections 6.1 and 6.2 along with the general requirements of the PWS? | Solicitation 6973GH-23-R-00148.pdf | |||
| 73 / M.7 Factor 2 | SIR page 73, Paragragh M.7 Factor 2 states the items listed in PWS section 1.4 | ||||
| 39 | The list in Factor 2 contains 8 of the 10 listed in section 1.4 of the PWS, should the proposal address all 10 or only the 8 listed in the solicitation. | Solicitation 6973GH-23-R-00148.pdf | |||
| 73 / M.7 Factor 2 | All 10 are evaluated on the pricing worksheets however this list only shows 8 as the type of work in 3-7/4-9 are duplications | ||||
| 40 | It states that “For this effort, Key Personnel are designated as the Project Manager, Information Engineer III, and Functional Analyst III.” But on page 74 it lists the “Applications Engineer II and Application Systems Analyst III” and “Agile Release Train Engineer” resumes for key personnel. We notice also that the cost spreadsheet has pricing for the positions for Project Manager, Information Engineer III, and Functional Analyst III but does not have scenarios for Applications Engineer II and Application Systems Analyst III and Agile Release Train Engineer. Can you clarify which are the labor categories for the key personnel? | Solicitation 6973GH-23-R-00148.pdf | |||
| 73 / M.7 Factor 3 | See answer #2 | ||||
| 41 | In the experience list for Applications Engineer II and Application Systems Analyst III, it lists WebEDI, is this actually WebADI instead? | Solicitation 6973GH-23-R-00148.pdf | |||
| 74 / M.7 Factor 3, 5th bullet | Yes, SIR page 74 has been revised to read WebADI | ||||
| 42 | Are Tasks 7 and 9 the same as 3 and 4, just for a second customer new customer to get onboarded to PRISM and DELPHI? If not, please explain the difference. | See answer #5 | |||
| 43 | What is the difference between task Task 3: ESC PRISM New Customer Deployments or Migrations and Task 9: 2nd ESC PRISM New Customer Deployments or Migrations. Same for Task 4: Delphi New Customer Deployments or Migrations and Task 7: 2nd Delphi New Customer Deployments or Migrations. Are they the same activities, just performed for second customer new customer to get onboarded to PRISM and DELPHI? If not, please explain the difference. | See answer #5 | |||
| 44 | For Factor 1: Corporate Technical Experience, what is meant by "a leadership role within the Oracle Federal Community"? | This is your experience, in relation to the points presented, to prove qualification | |||
| 45 | For Factor 1: Corporate Technical Experience, what is meant by "demonstrated by a leadership role within the Federal acquisition community"? | See answer #44 | |||
| 46 | Can you provide a sample task order? | See answer #17 | |||
| 47 | Can the government please clarify the last date to submit questions? If what is in the Instructions is correct, would the government consider releasing the answers to questions before the final submission due date? | See answer #13 | |||
| 48 | Can a vendor submit bids on multiple teams? For example, one bid as a Prime contractor, and another bid where the vendor is a subcontractor? | L.7 Proposal Acceptance |
The Government will consider only one proposal from each offeror.
| No, only one proposal per vendor. | |||
| 49 | Does the government intend to award points to organizations that are Oracle partners, and AGA supporters? Will those points be awarded if the subcontractor is an Oracle partner and AGA supporter? | Corporate partner of Oracle Corporation and the Association of Government Accountants. | Subcontractor activity is considered within the technical evaluation. |
| 50 | Are the Key Personnel, including the Program Manager, required to be based in Oklahoma City, OK? | Performance Work Statement |
1.3 Scope of Work
Services will be principally performed at the MMAC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, unless otherwise stipulated by the Government on the individual call order(s). Contractor personnel will be located predominately at the MMAC, with some contractor personnel located in the Washington DC metropolitan area and various field offices throughout the United States.
| No. | ||
| 51 | Can the government provide a projected ceiling amount? | No, the pricing you provide for evaluation is what will create the ceiling amount. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .