Final_Q&A_for_the_RDTE_II_70RSAT-18-R-00000009.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Research, Engineering and Development, Test and Evaluation II Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 70RSAT-18-R-00000009
About this file
Attachment I - Vendor Questions and the Government's Responses
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment_0005_to_RFP_70RSAT-18-R-00000009__3-2-18.pdf | ||
| Amendment_0004_to_RFP_70RSAT-18-R-00000009.pdf | ||
| Page_2_of_Amend_0003_RDTE_II_RFP__2-8-18.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_III_-Master_Rate_Table_RDTE_II_RFP_2-8-18.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Amend_0003_to_RDTE_II_RFP__2-8-18.pdf | ||
| Amendment_0002_Labor_Categories_for_RDTE_II.docx | DOCX document | |
| Amend_0002_to_70RSAT-18-R-00000009___2-7-18.pdf | ||
| Page_2_to_Amendment_0002_to_RDTE_II_RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| Amend_0001_to_70RSAT-18-R-00000009.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_III_-Master_Rate_Table_RDTE_II_RFP_RDTE_II.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_II-Recommended_Labor_Categories_RDTE_II.pdf | ||
| Final_RFP_for_RDTEII_1-26-18.pdf | ||
| Attachment_IV-Past_Performance_Questionnaire_RDTEII.pdf | ||
| Attachment_I_-SOW_for_RDTE_II__Final_1-26-18.pdf |
Show all 14
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| # | Section | Page | Vendor Question | Government Response |
| 1 | L.4 | Page 107 | The first paragraph mentions 3 separate volumes but only 2 are listed in the table. Please advise if a third volume not listed in the table is required. For example, paragraph L.4.8 references “The Past Performance Volume” and paragraph L.6.6.references Volume IV. | Section L.4 cited on page 107 should read: “... the following 2 separate volumes…”. Section L.4.8 last sentence should be changed to read: “…Past Performance Tab C (not subject to 15 page imitation). |
| 2 | L.4 | Page 107 | What are the format requirements? | Font style - Times Roman preferred; Font Size - no less than 10pt for narrative/paragraph; no less than 8pt for headers; footers; tables; graphics. |
| Font; Font Size (for main text, tables, illustrations, headers, footers); Margins, Page Size | ||||
| 3 | Table in Section L.4 | Page 108 | In what file format should the electronic copy be (for example, Word or PDF)? | MS Word or PDF are acceptable formats. |
| 4 | L.4.3 | Page 109, paragraph 2 | Paragraph 2 indicates that “Emphasis should be placed on the quality and depth of the Offeror’s expertise in one or more specific areas as opposed to the extent to which the Offeror exceeds threshold capabilities required in all areas.” This direction is not clear. Must Offerors describe how they exceed threshold capabilities required in all areas, or may they describe more generally the extent of their capabilities while emphasizing expertise in specific areas? Please clarify. | The offeror can propose the extent to which they feel is appropriate. An award is intended based on an offerors ability to perform in all technical task areas. Offeror's should address all task areas. They may describe capabilities in specific areas. The intent of this IDIQ is to obtain performers with capabilities in all areas. |
| 5 | L.4.5 | Page 110 | What is the minimum/maximum number of Past Performance references? | Factor 3 – Past Performance is limited to 15 pages so the number of references in limited to how many can be included within that page limit. |
| 6 | L.4.6 | Page 111, paragraph 2 | On August 22, 2017 in the Government “Responses to Questions” for the earlier Presolicitation the following was asked as question 14 with regard to Section L.9.1, page 21 of the Draft RFP posted on July 7, 2017: “The second bullet defines ‘current’ as within the past three years. In order to provide bidders the opportunity to more fully describe their experience and expertise, would the Government consider expanding the definition of ‘current’ to include past performance within the past five years?” The Government’s response to question 14 was: “Yes. The term ‘current’ will be redefined.” However, in the Final RFP the term “recent” is again defined as present or previous contracts within the past 3 years. Therefore, the question again to be posed is will the Government, as previously indicated, consider expanding the definition of “recent” to include past performance within the past five (5) years? | Past performance within the past 5 years is acceptable. |
| 7 | L.4.8 | Page 111, paragraph 1 | This paragraph contains the following sentence: “The completed letters of consent should be submitted as part of the Past Performance Volume (not subject to 25 page limitation).” However, it is indicated earlier in Section L that Volume 1, Tab C, Past Performance is limited to 15 pages. Which page number is correct? | Section L.4 instructions are correct with a 15 page limit for past performance. |
| 8 | L.7.1 | Page 14 | What are the formatting requirements on the following? | |
| a. Paragraph spacing | Single spacing is acceptable, with paragraph indents on first line. | |||
| b. Margins | no less than 1/2 inch margins all around. | |||
| c. Font style and font size in paragraphs, headers, footers, tables, graphics | Font style - Times Roman preferred; Font Size - no less than 10pt for narrative/paragraph; no less than 8pt for headers; footers; tables; graphics. | |||
| 9 | L.8.1.6.4 | page 19 - Item 10 in the table for key personnel calls for references | Can references include US Government personnel (including DHS/TSA/TSL/etc.) as well as private sector references? | US Government personnel can be included as references only if they served as COR/Technical Monitor/ or Contracting Officer. |
| 10 | M.2 | Page 116, paragraph 2 | This section states that “The proposal will be evaluated to determine the adequacy of these intrinsic capabilities in all areas, and the extent to which the Offeror presents a sound understanding of the requirement by addressing an approach to perform in all technical task areas.” And then indicates that “Emphasis will be placed on the quality and depth of the Offeror’s expertise in one or more specific areas as opposed to the extent to which the Offeror exceeds threshold capabilities required in all areas.” This direction and the manner in which the Government will evaluate this section is not clear. Must Offerors describe how they meet or exceed capabilities in all areas, or may they describe more generally the extent of their capabilities while emphasizing expertise in specific areas? Please clarify. | An award is intended based on an offerors ability to perform in all technical task areas. Offeror's should address all task areas. They may describe capabilities in specific areas. The intent of this IDIQ is to obtain performers with capabilities in all areas. |
| 11 | M.2 | Page 118, Paragraph: Factor 3, Past Performance, item c. | This section indicates that the Government will “evaluate any performance record information available within DHS, other government or non-government organizations, publicly available reports, and/or data stored in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Rating system (CPARS).” Will that evaluation be restricted to “recent” past performance as defined for this solicitation, or will it include any and all past performance regardless of date of performance? | Past performance within the past 5 years will be considered. |
| 12 | RFP Title Page | Title | There are three different statements for the work to be performed: | The Title of this acquisition is "Research and Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&EII) Technical Support Services |
| B.1 | 4 | 1. On the title page of the RFP: | ||
| Attachment 1 | 1 | Research, Engineering and Development ,Test and Evaluation II (RDT&EII)Technical Support Services | ||
| 2. Paragraph B.1:Research, Engineering, and Developmental, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) II, technical support services | ||||
| 3. On the first page of Attachment 1, Statement of Work (SOW): | ||||
| Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) and Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E) II(RDT&EII) Technical Support Services | ||||
| These do not have exactly the same meanings. Please advise which one is correct. | ||||
| 13 | Attachment 1, 2.02 and 2.03 | 6-Apr | Attachments I and II, both contain lists of the subject matter expert areas and requirements. The lists are slightly different. Please advise which list should be referenced in the proposal. | Labor Category Description file is being replaced. See the attachment to Amendment 0002 to the RFP. |
| Attachment II, Subject Matter Experts and Resources | Labor Category Description file is being replaced. See the attachment to Amendment 0002 to the RFP. | |||
| 14 | N/A | N/A | Does the TSL have any plans to conduct testing and evaluation in the operational environment for promising technologies, albeit at a limited level, as part of this program? | No. Operational T&E is not with scope of the TSL mission at this time. |
| 15 | Attachment II | Page 2; number 3, Computer System Analyst | The description calls for experience but does not specify the duration or number of years of experience called for. Is there a specific requirement for experience for this labor category? | Labor Category Description file is being replaced. See the attachment to Amendment 0002 to the RFP. |
| 16 | Attachment II | Page 5; number 12, Engineering Technician. Junior | Description indicates that this is a “potential internship” position. If this position is used as an internship opportunity, should it be bid as a paid position with corresponding labor rates, or should it be considered as an unpaid internship? Is the status of this position as paid or unpaid at the discretion of the contractor or of the Government? | The intent is for this to be a paid position, whether internship (part-time/temporary) or full time as a requirement is defined. |
| 17 | SOW 1.2.2 | Page 3 | Section 1.2.2 states that “The contractor shall be expected to work with military and conventional explosives as well as homemade explosives.” | |
| 1. Will the contractor be allowed to charge Hazardous Duty pay for this time in the Lab? | No. "Hazardous duty pay" as an extra is not permitted. Considerations should be included in the proposed rates. | |||
| 2. Will the task order be issued to one (1) or more contractors? | Task orders against the IDIQ will be competed among the successful IDIQ offerors. Only one contractor will perform per task order. | |||
| 3. Are all Task areas assigned to one (1) or more contractors? | All IDIQ offerors can bid on any of the task orders solicited among the three task areas. | |||
| 18 | SOW 3.1 | Page 9 | Section 3.1 states that key personnel shall be on duty/available between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. Will the contractor follow the TSA work schedule of nine (9) - nine (9) hour days and one (1) RDO each two (2) weeks? | These are TSL Core hours of operation. Standard work shifts must fall within that timeframe, unless second shift operations are required under awarded tasking. Alternate work schedules, as described in this question and generally not automatically permitted or assumed. It depends on the task order execution. |
| 19 | SOW 4.1.1 | Page 13 | Section 4.1.1 states that “… some positions may require a Top Secret Level clearance.” What position/s will this be? | It depends on the requirements within task orders. Those positions cannot be defined at this time. |
| 20 | Master Rate Table | What are the annual work hours for an FTE? | For estimating purposes, one FTE was based on 1,980 hours per 12 month performance period. |
| 21 | Master Rate Table / Labor Categories | The labor categories descriptions of Software/Computer Engineer 1 to 7 in the rate table are not found in the Labor Categories Description. There are three labor categories: Computer Specialist, Computer Systems Analyst and Human Factors Specialist have descriptions but they are not listed in the rate table. | Labor Category Description file is being replaced. See the attachment to Amendment 0002 to the RFP. |
| 22 | General | Subcontracting; Are you encouraging subcontracting for this role? there's a few opportunities that we've had in the pipeline previously but was specifically detailed where it was unyielding to an collaboration. | Subcontracting /partnering is encouraged. |
| 23 | General | Splinter task orders; From a in-depth review of SOW sections 1.1.5, 1.2, 2.0.2, 2.1 and partially 2.2 our group has identified some technological gaps that actually was not identified in which should be considered in this SOW. Could there be an opportunity to share the new elements that should be considered? (all ties into section 2.2) as well as being able to create new tasks orders in addendum to a reciprocal sourcing opportunity to this RFP?1. The reason why I ask is that there's new research on some novel mechanisms that are being built that would unfortunately be overlooked. I want to ensure that we can make this RFP and any innovations as robustly as possible. | The SOW sections are consistent with the mission of the DHS/S&T/TSL. Nothing will be added or changed at this time. |
| 24 | General | XXX received this notice (see attached) from XXX (01/26/2018) however, I did not get “Technical Product specification.” |
Please let us know Technical Product specification – as XXX would like to respond to this opportunity, so that XXX can offer appropriate product for this opportunity.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY is looking for- 1- Polarized light microscope 2- Automated Wide-Field Stereomicroscope (AWSM) 3- Optical Microscope
| This solicitation is NOT for the three items noted within this question so no technical product specifications are or will be provided. These items are listed in the SOW as government furnished equipment, items the government will be providing TO successful performers in the execution of requirements. | ||||
| 25 | L.4.10 | page 111 | Is it the Government’s intent for Offerors to include the IDIQ PM resume as an Appendix to Volume I (not in page count)? | The resume for the proposed IDIQ PM does not count against Volume I page count. |
| 26 | L.4 | page 108 | May Offerors include a Compliance Matrix in Volume I outside of page count? | There is no requirement for a compliance matrix. Any extraneous submission will be considered as part of the overall page count. |
| 27 | L.4 | page 108 | In what format (e.g. CD-ROM, .pdf) should Offerors submit the electronic copy? | The expectation is for delivery in either Word or Adobe .pdf. Email is preferred but CD-Rom is acceptable. |
| 28 | L.7 | page 114 | Will the Small Business Plan be an attachment to Volume II? | The Subcontracting Plan can be an attachment to either Volume as long as it is clearly identified. |
| 29 | Attachment II; #21 Program/Project Manager | Attachment II; #21 Program/Project Manager; paragraph 3 | Will the government recognize 10 years of program/project management in science and technology activities, including 4 years as Alternate BPA Program Manager at the TSL and 4 years as a Task Order Project Manager for multiple, simultaneous task orders at the TSL as an adequate equivalent to possessing project management professional certification from PMI? | Yes. |
| 30 | B.5 | page 5 | Must the ceiling rates be fully-burdened with DCAA approved/reported fringe, overhead, G&A, and fee? | Yes. |
| 31 | Section L | Pg. 14 and pg. 15L.7.2 and L.8 Volume I – Technical Management | L.7.2 lists page limits for Tab C, Factor 3 as 10 pages + resumes while the table on the next page, L.8 pg. 15 has page limits for Tab C Factor 3 at 25 pages without mention of resumes. Which is correct? | Section L.4, Format and Instructions for Proposal Submission cited on page 107, cites the page limits for each technical factor. Each technical factor has a page limit of 15 pages. Unable to locate the references cited in vendor's question. |
| 32 | F.3 | 11 3rd para | Reference is made to maximum performance period of six (6) months; should this be twelve (12) months? | No. Six months is correct as written in this section. |
| 33 | F.8 | 13 g | References to sections F.8.1.3 should be changed to F.8.3 and references to F.8.1.4 should be changed to F.8.4. | The section references cited in Section F.8, Deliverables, paragraph (g) have been changed to read: “Individual Subcontracting Report (Section F.8.3); Summary Subcontract Report (Section F.8.4). |
| 34 | F.8.1 | 13 1st para | Confusing terms "monthly contract status report" and "monthly task order activity report". Can the Government provide clarification on whether these references are one in the same? | They are the same but by a different name. There is no requirement for a monthly IDIQ report. Monthly reporting is at the task order level. Task orders are issued as contracts, thus the double naming at this time. |
| 35 | F.8.2, L.7 and M.3 | 13, 114, and 119 - multiple | Can the Government please clarify whether a subcontracting plan is required to be submitted for the IDIQ proposal? This is no requirement listed under Section L4, but there is reference made under Section L7 (although Section L7 is specific to task order requirements exceeding $700K). It appears from Section M.3 that a subcontracting plan is required and that it will be evaluated, but this is not clear. If a subcontracting plan is not required for the IDIQ proposal, please confirm this. If a subcontracting plan is required for the IDIQ proposal, please provide instructions in Section L and evaluation information in section M, for example, what is the relative importance of the subcontracting plan compared to Factors 1-4? | Offerors other than small business concerns are required to submit subcontracting plans in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 (See Section M.3 and FAR Part 19). Contractors other than small business concerns are also required to submit subcontracting plans for task orders with dollar values exceeding $700K. |
The Individual Subcontracting Report and the Summary Subcontract Report are reports that are required to be submitted in accordance with the RFP (see FAR Clause 3052.219-70 in Section I.7.8)
| 36 | H.24 | 33 - 1st para | If a subcontracting plan is required to be submitted, please clarify the requirement under H.24 that indicates subcontracting is not required in order for an Offeror to submit a proposal? | Delete the following paragraph: Subcontracting is NOT required in order for an Offeror to submit a proposal and/or be awarded a contract under the IDIQ requirement. However, Offerors may consider subcontracting as a means to more fully meet the array of requirements and resources potentially required by DHS under the PWS requirement.” A subcontracting plan is required under this RFP. |
| 37 | I.7.7 | 87 - 3rd para | Can the Government include the Contract Level Program Manager as key under this section? | |
| 38 | L.4 | 107 - 1st para | Reference is made to three (3) separate volumes. Please confirm that there are only two (2) volumes. | There are two volumes. |
| 39 | L.4.3 and M.2 | 109/116 - 2nd and 1st paragraphs respectively | Can the Government define more clearly what is meant by the second sentence under Section L4.3 and last sentence under section M.2: “Emphasis should be placed on the quality and depth of the Offeror’s expertise in one or more specific areas as opposed to the extent to which the Offeror exceeds threshold capabilities in all areas.”? This seems to indicate that an offeror can be responsive to the RFP without having expertise or capabilities to execute the full set of requirements included in the SOW as long as the offeror has expertise in one or more specific areas. If this is not the Government’s intention, the following alternative wording (or similar) is recommended: “Emphasis should be placed on the quality and depth of the Offeror’s expertise across all areas of the SOW.” If this is the Government’s intention, please explain how the Government will evaluate a proposal that may show quality and depth in some areas but lack quality and depth in other areas as compared to a proposal that shows quality and depth of expertise across all areas. | An award is intended based on an offerors ability to perform in all technical task areas. Offeror's should address all task areas. They may describe capabilities in specific areas. The intent of this IDIQ is to obtain performers with capabilities in all areas. (see question 10). |
| 40 | L.4.3 and M.2 | 109/119 - 2nd and 1st paragraphs respectively | Please define the term “threshold capabilities”? This suggests the Government has established some minimal level of capabilities they will accept for this opportunity. | The word "threshold" is being removed. |
| 41 | L.4.5 and M2 | 110 and 119 - 2nd para | According to Sections L and M, lack of past performance is not viewed unfavorably even though Past Performance (Factor 3) is weighted as comparatively equal to Factors 1 and 2. Past performance serves as proof of an offeror’s claims of intrinsic capabilities and ability to satisfy SOW requirements. Given it’s relative importance, it is recommended that Past Performance be required and that lack of Past Performance be viewed as unfavorable. The only way for the offeror to demonstrate intrinsic capabilities is through past performance as the Government has not asked for resumes of intrinsic staff to demonstrate this fact. | Intrinsic capabilities is meant for the offeror to demonstrate the kinds of staffing capabilities, people or labor categories, and its ability to retain such capabilities; and the kinds of work performed by such staff that is relevant to the requirements within this RFP. Resumes are not required at this time since no funded work is solicited upon IDIQ award. |
| 42 | L.4.8 | 111 - 1st para | Can the Government confirm the page count for Past Performance? This section references 25 pages whereas page 108 table references 15 pages. | Past performance page count is 15 pages. |
| 43 | L.4.10 | 112 - 1sst | Is the alternate PM considered key? If not, is the name and resume of the alternate PM required in the proposal? | This section does not require an alternate PM, but requires an alternate(s) who shall act for the contractor in the absence of the PM. This is not a key position, and the contractor can propose an alternate person or labor category. This is not for routine performance, but intended as back-up or for temporary measures (i.e., sick leave, or vacation). |
| 44 | L.5.1.2 | 113 - last para | FP labor rate section states the offeror shall propose fully burdened ceiling labor rates for ALL labor categories. Can we assume these are the same rates provided in the master rate table (attachment III)? | Yes. |
| 45 | L.5.1.4 | 113 - 2nd para | Can the Government clarify why ODC section contains references to Project and Program Management cost factors? | Delete references to Project and Program Management rates under L.5.1.4, ODC (Material/Travel). |
| 46 | L.5.1.4 | 113 - 2nd para | Can the Government further clarify and differentiate task order and contract level program management? Task order project management is defined, but there is no definition or expectation for contract level program management costs. | The expectation is for an IDIQ project manager to be identified that will oversee any/all awarded task orders and serve as the single point of contact for the IDIQ-level COR. Function of the PM at the IDIQ level is the same as that for any assigned TO. Typically, the IDIQ level PM serves as the TO PM, but that is for each offeror to propose. |
| 47 | L6.4 | 114 - Additional Instructions | Please confirm that the SF-1449, Section K and SF-30 if issued will become part of the cost volume. | All required solicitation documents applicable to this RFP will be incorporated into the contract at time of award. |
| 48 | L6.6 | 114 - Acknowledgement of Amendments | Please Clarify where exceptions will be identified. This paragraph states Vol. IV. | Any exceptions shall be identified in Volume I Not Volume IV. |
| 49 | L.1.5.5 | 113 - 1st para | We assume requirements under A&B are only required if the offeror does not have a Government approved accounting system. Please confirm. Also, this section number heading appears to be incorrect. | Yes. Section Number should read: L.5.1.5, Adequate Accounting System. |
| 50 | Section M | General | What is the Government’s approach to evaluating Factors 1-3 (e.g., will adjectival ratings be applied)? Can the Government further define how each factor will be evaluated? | The Government will be utiizing adjectival ratings during proposal evaluations. |
| 51 | M3 | 120 - last para | States Small Business subk plan will be assessed a rating of Acceptable or Not Acceptable, however it doesn't appear that a subcontracting plan is required since it is not specified in Section L and section L.7 refers to plans required on Task Order proposals | Offerors other than small business concerns are required to submit subcontracting plans in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 (See Section M.3 and FAR Part 19). Contractors other than small business concerns are also required to submit subcontracting plans for task orders with dollar values exceeding $700K. |
The Individual Subcontracting Report and the Summary Subcontract Report are reports that are required to be submitted in accordance with the RFP (see FAR Clause 3052.219-70 in Section I.7.8)
| 52 | Attachment II | N/A | The Government provides Software/Computer Engineer labor categories (1-7) in the pricing attachment but they are not listed in Attachment 2. Should the offeror propose labor category descriptions for these additional labor categories or will the Government provide definitions for these labor categories? | PHYLLIS - the wrong labor category files was provided as attachment |
| 53 | Attachment II | N/A - Project Manager (Function) | The Government has a defined Program/Project Manager Labor Category but also defines a “function” for this same role from which any labor category can be assigned. With regards to the project manager “function”, can the Government better define the qualification requirements to include degree requirements and years of experience performing project management functions defined in functional description? | This is up to the offeror to proposed. Historically, some technical staff have served as task order level program managers or project leads under the labor category of, for example, Engineer 6 or Scientist 6. They have served as both the technical performer and the PM, since PM hours are generally limited. The offeror can propose according to its understanding of the requirement and in compliance with labor category qualifications. |
| 54 | Attachment II | n/a - All | Would the Government consider equivalencies for years of applicable experience in lieu of degrees if the experience matches the labor category requirements? (e.g., High School and 4 years of experience is equivalent to a Bachelor’s degree if the 4 years experience is representative of the category requirements) | No. Any exceptions or equivalencies will be addressed at the task order level. |
| 55 | General | For my company's planning purposes I'm wondering—would this be a follow-on to a current contract, or would this be a new start? |
If this is a follow-on, under which contract number is your requirement currently being performed, and by whom
| This is a follow-on contract, thus the indicator "II" in the title RDT&EII. Current BPA holders who are performing under the current RDT&E effort are: HSHQDC-13-A-00021 SRA; HSHQDC-13-A-00022 Signature Science; and HSHQDC-13-A-00023 Battelle Memorial Institute | |||
| 56 | Section L.4 | Page 107 para 1 | Quote from section "….consisting of the following three (3) separate volumes with the maximum number of pages for each proposal Volume as listed below”. |
QUESTION: There are two volumes listed in the table (I and II). Are these the only two Volumes (I and II) applicable to solicitation?
| Solicitation includes only two volumes. | ||||
| 57 | Section L.6.6 | page 114 para 2 | Quote from section "Nonetheless, any exception taken by the Offeror, at its own risk, shall be identified in Volume IV only.” QUESTION: Are there only two volumes applicable to this solicitation? | Solicitation includes only two volumes. |
| 58 | Section L.4.10 | Page 111 - 112 | Quote from section "The offeror shall provide a resume documenting the candidates education…" - QUESTION: Does this count toward the page limit? In what section should the Offeror include the resume? | Resumes do not count against overall page count. |
| 59 | Section L.4.8 | Page 111 para 1 | QUESTION: This solicitation section references a 25 page limitation. Should this read 15 page limitation? | 15 page limitation is correct. |
END OF VENDOR QUESTIONS AND GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSES.
ATTACHMENT I to Amendment 0002
RFP: 70RSAT-18-R-00000009 70RSAT-18-R-00000009
&P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it.