CHARLES_RFP_Amendment_4.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

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

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

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

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

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

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

Alice Pursell

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

This is Amendment 4 to the Request for Proposal entitled CompreHensive Aircraft Readiness, Lifecycle, Engineering, and Support (CHARLES). The purpose of this amendment is to issue the Questions and Responses for the CHARLES Request for Proposal.

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.

NASA/Johnson Space Center Attn: Darrell Compton/BR 2101 E NASA Parkway Houston, TX 77058-3696

80JSC022R0014

80JSC022R0014

See Block 16C

04/29/2022

6/3/2022

X

CHARLES RFP Questions and Responses

# Reference Page No. Question Response

1 L.32(a)(2) L-781 The RFP states, "Text in diagrams, charts, tables, artwork, and photographs shall be no smaller than 12-point text size.” It is the experience of the Offeror that tables and graphics—particularly organizational charts listing many positions and detailed flow charts diagrams depicting processes—do not lend themselves to 12-point font due to the volume of space required.

Given the limited pages available, would NASA consider changing the requirement for diagrams, charts, and tables to 10-point text size?

No, Offerors shall not use a font type other than non-compressed Arial font with single-spaced 12-point text for diagrams, charts, and tables.

2 L.33.4.1, MA1 L-788 The RFP states, “The Offeror shall provide DRD-M01 Management Plan, items 8.c.i through 8.c.ixv, in a format consistent with DRD-M01.” It appears that the wrong Roman numeral (“ixv”) was inadvertently cited. Will NASA please provide the correct Roman numeral to replace “ixv”?

L.33.4.1 was corrected in RFP Amendment 2 to reflect the appropriate reference of 8.c.xiv.

3 L.33.4.1, DRD-

M01

L-791 415 L.33.4.1 instructs offerors to provide a completed DRD M01. DRD-M01 instructs offerors to “Provide a chart depicting your management organizational structure and how it will integrate into the government structure described in Attachment L-1, Resource Planning Document. Include the communication channels, lines of authority, reporting relationships and responsibilities of all organizational elements.” Attachment L-1 contains 11 separate organizational charts, each showing a different component of the program and each showing multiple relationships between the Government structure and the contractor organization.

It is unclear how offerors are to convey the information specified, as well as “communication channels, lines of authority, reporting relationships and responsibilities of all organizational elements” in one chart. In order to afford offerors an opportunity to provide all the information required by this element of DRD-M01, will NASA allow for multiple organizational charts and for these charts to be outside of the stated page limitations?

The provided L-1 includes notional staffing for all levels. DRD-M01 requests the overall management structure. The requested organizational chart will be included in the page count.

4 L.33.5(j) L-792 & L-793 In reference to the subsection “Safety and Health Data” sub section 2. :

“2. Records of the company’s occupational injuries and illnesses. These records shall include, for each worksite, as a minimum, injury logs (you may redact names), number of occupational injuries and illnesses (broken down by Days Away, Restricted or Transfer, and Other OSHA Recordable), annual average number of employees at the worksite, total hours worked by all employees, and applicable NAICS code. Provide records for the past five complete calendar years with signature of a company executive. Provide explanatory remarks of adverse performance and methods being used to improve performance. Format may be a copy of each years OSHA logs (Forms 300 and 300A) or equivalent occupational injury and illness data.”

Question:

Is the customer expecting all 300 logs from all locations the company operates/operated over the last 5 years?

Or will the logs from the sites listed in the past performance suffice?

Per L.33.5(j), “Offerors shall provide the following performance data with explanatory remarks on contracts performed in the last five years. Offerors shall identify the applicable North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Code for each contract and shall include points of contact for each contract. If a joint venture or prime-subcontractor relationship is proposed, the same information shall be provided for each company proposed. Explanatory statements shall be included as appropriate. For all work performed during the past five years, offerors shall provide the following:”. The data should include copies of any and all OSHA citations with explanatory remarks. Also records of the company’s occupational injuries and illnesses shall be provided.

5 CHARLES

DRFP

Questions and Responses (released w/ the CHARLES

RFP)

Attachment_L

4_CHARLES_E

PM

Question #9, & #17 Tab:

"Incumbency Retention and Pay Template

(IRAP)"

Per Question #9 and #17 on the initial Q&A, the Government stated that all historical incumbent rate information would be provided in the Technical Library, however, it is not included anywhere in the Technical Library that we can locate. Can the government confirm which document within the Technical Library houses this information? If this information has not been released in the Technical Library, does the Government intend to release the data in order for offerors to correctly and fully populate the necessary sections of the IRAP tab within the EPM?

The document "CHARLES Composite Incumbent Rates" was added to the technical library with RFP Amendment 2.

6 L.33.4.1/MA1 L-788 RFP Section L - The Offeror shall provide DRD-M01 Management Plan, items 8.c.i through 8.c.ixv... DRD - The Offeror shall provide DRD-M01 1.Initial: Items i through xiv due with proposal. Would the Government please clarify what is due with the proposal for DRD-M01 – i. through xiv (iaw the DRD) or or 8.c.i. through 8.c.ixv (iaw Section L)?

Please see response #2 above.

7 CHARLES

DRFP

Questions and Responses, Question #9, Att L-4 (Pricing Table), Tab

IRAP

3 In the Government's response to question #9, it states the historical rates referenced in the RFP are provided in the NASA Technical Library although this data did not seem to be released with the Technical Library documents on Sam.gov. Can the Government please provide the referenced historical rate data? In addition, if industry uses historical rate data to develop rates, are we still required to provide ERI salary survey data?

Please see response #5 above. If the Offeror chooses to use the provided CHARLES Composite Incumbent rates, then ERI salary survey data will not be required for SLCs that utilize the historical incumbent rate data.

8 L.32(a)(2) L-781 Can the Government please consider using font size 10 for graphics and tables?

Please see response #1 above.

9 Attachment J- 4-1 Collective Bargaining Agreements, Appendix A

40 The CBA information provided in the SOW includes rate ranges and max rates for 2022 and 2023. Is the government expecting us to use the max rate or will the current incumbent rates be a part of the historical rate data included in the technical library?

In accordance with FAR 22.1002-3(a), “Successor contractors… must pay wages and fringe benefits… at least equal to those contained in any bona fide collective bargaining agreement entered into the predecessor contract.”

10 L.33.5(h) L-791 There is potential that some contract representatives will not provide a Past Performance Questionnaire unless specifically requested by the Government.

If we provide our contract POC, can the Government confirm they will request a Past Performance Questionnaire from that contact?

Offerors are responsible for ensuring past performance questionnaires are submitted directly to the Government.

11 L.33.5(f) L-792 Section (f) states "Complete the appropriate past performance Matrix as part of your response. In the event of a conflict between the narrative and the relevance matrix, the narrative will take precedence as the offeror's intended response." Is there a difference between the Past Performance Matrix and the relevance matrix mentioned above?

No, there is no difference between the appropriate “past performance Matrix” identified in your question and “relevance matrix” referenced in L.33.5(f).

12 L.33.5(d) L-791 The information requested in L.33.5 (d) is also requested in Attachment L-2-1. Is providing the requested information in Attachment L-2-1 sufficient or are we required to provide the information in two places?

Submission of this information shall be within either L-2-1 or L-2-2 as appropriate. The language in L.33.5(d) is updated in RFP Amendment 3.

13 Section C, Statement of Work JSC, Appendix C

Page C-6 Can experience and relevant certifications be used in lieu of a Bachelors degree for the Executive Manager?

The Government will not use experience and relative certifications in lieu of a bachelor’s degree for the Executive Manager. Per Section C Statement of Work, Appendix C, the Executive Manager requires bachelor’s degree with 10+ years of experience, managing business operations on cost-reimbursable type contract.

14 Attachment L-2-1, Past Performance Matrix

Line 47 The requirement asks to list the type, model, and series aircraft supported on the referenced contract, but the cell to enter the requirement is formatted with a drop-down box with options yes, no, or N/A. Can offerors modify this cell to insert the appropriate response information?

The drop-down box was removed in RFP Amendment 2.

15 Table L-2 L-786 Can DRD-M17, Key Personnel - Executive Manager Resume be removed from the past performance page count?

No. Per L.33.2.1 Table L-2, the Executive Manager’s resume is included in the Past Performance page count.

16 N/A N/A Since no CHARLES questions have been answered as of May 20th and many questions are directly tied to proposal requirements, can the proposal due date be extended until 20 days after the answers to all questions have been posted?

The government extended the submission date by Amendment 3.

17 L.33.5(c),(d), and (h)

L-791 and 792 L.33.5 (h) states, "...Offerors, any major subcontractors, as defined above, the proposed Key Personnel (Executive Manager), and any other organizational entity (parent or affiliated company, division(s), business units, or segments of your company, which is considered to provide meaningful involvement in contract performance, shall each submit the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment L-3, to all of the point of contact references required in paragraph

(c) above."

a. Will the Government please clarify: Is the intent for the contractor to submit a PPQ to both the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer Representative for each contract or just one POC per contract in paragraph L.33.5(a)?

One point of contact per past performance questionnaire per contract is sufficient.

Multiple Past Performance Questionaries on one contract will also be acceptable.

18 Cover Letter, L-20

Page 2, Item 3, L-773

The solicitation cover letter states that "after release of the RFP, the CHARLES Pre-proposal Conference is anticipated to be held on May 18, 2022." However, Section L.20 indicates that a virtual pre-proposal conference is anticipated on May 10, 2022, 9am-11am.

Kindly request the Government clarifies the date and time of the virtual pre-proposal conference.

The Pre-Proposal Conference date was updated with Amendment 1. Registration instructions were posted with Modification 1.

19 L.33.5.(e) L-790-L.792 In addition to the relevance rationale, Past Performance narrative (L-2-3) requires several pieces of information including Org Chart and Resume. The resume template alone (DRD-M17) is a 5-page template, which further reduces the page limit for Past Performance narrative down to only available pages to respond to all Past Performance requirements. Would the Government please increase the page limit for Past Performance narrative to 25 pages or exclude DRD-M17 resume template from the page count?

The Government will not increase the page limit for Past performance narrative or exclude DRD-M17 resume template from the page count. The resume template shows the information requested, however the layout may be adjusted.

20 Attch J-1, DRD listing, DRD-M01, L.33.4.1, MA1

Mgt Plan

Page 415 and L-

Within DRD-M01, item 8.f(1) states "Initial:

Items i through xiv due with proposal."

Within section L.33.4.1 it states, "The Offeror shall provide DRD-M01 Management plan, items 8.c.i through 8.c.ixv..." Request the Government reconcile these two requirements to clarify which items are required with proposal.

Please see response #2 above.

21 Attch J-1, DRD listing, DRD-M17

Page 481 Within the DRD-M17 on the page titled recent work history there is a requirement to delineate the "Type of Business".

Request the Government clarify what description is required. Is this section intended to be for a description such as Government, commercial, small business, large business, NAICS code or what does the Government request?

"Type of Business" refers to the business industry type.

22 Attachment L-2-2

All Tabs In cell B39, the instructions state, “Fill in the percentage of labor hours your company will supply for the functions listed in each section of the SOW below on the CHARLES contract” with an arrow pointing down to cells B40 – 46 and B48 – 51. The instructions require filling in the workshare percentage for each SOW area of the NASA CHARLES contract. But the cells are pre-loaded with Yes/No choice

The drop-down box was removed in Amendment 2.

23 L33.4.2 Technical Approach (TA) - Mission Suitability Subfactor 2;Section L.33.6 Cost

TOPT -

TA2,TRST-

TA2;TOPT-SR

(JSC), TOPT-SR

(El Paso), L-797

Within Section L the Government states that for proposal pricing and evaluation purposes "Offerors shall assume that all work is performed at JSC". Included in Attachment L-4 CHARLES EPM within the TRST-TA2 and TOPT-TA2 worksheets the Government identifies a Production Control Clerk and Production Supervisor;

however these categories are not identified within the TOPT-SR (JSC) worksheet nor are they identified within the Section L Table L-2 JSC Specified Resources or Section C - Personnel Requirements. Question 1: Will the Government clarify whether the listing of categories included on the TRST-TA2 and TOPT-TA2 worksheet is specific to the TA2 worksheets? Question 2: Will the Government clarify if the TRST-TA2 and TOPT-TA2 categories are intended to mirror the TOPT-SR (JSC) or other EPM worksheets?

The listing of categories for the TOPT-TA2 and TRST-TA2 are specific for those worksheets.

The TRST-TA2 and TOPT-TA2 worksheets are not intended to directly mirror any other worksheets.

24 NASA Cover Letter;Attach ment L-4

CHARLES

EPM;

CL Pg 4,EPM

(IRAP)

The Government has indicated that Historical Incumbent Rate data is provided in the NASA Technical Library; however as of 5/13/22 this document has not been posted to the Government-Wide point of entry website even after completing Step 6 of NASA's Cover letter instructions for access. The EPM IRAP tab provides the Incumbent with two potential options for Compensation (Historic Incumbent Data & Contractor Incumbent Data) which are either currently unknown or unable to be considered by any other offerors for use or strategic development except the Incumbent. As of the date of this question, and the current NASA Proposal due date, the Incumbent Offeror will have had access to both the RFP, the Historic Incumbent Compensation, and time to consider using an alternative to the Historic Incumbent data for at least double the amount of time all other offerors will have to review or consider this information and incorporate the information into the Cost/Price Volume and EPM. Will the Government extend the proposal due date at the time of release of the Historical Incumbent data to ensure all offerors are not disadvantaged by the Incumbent's access to this critical information?

Please see response #5 above. The government extended the submission date by Amendment 3.

25 NASA Cover Letter;Attach ment L-4

CHARLES

EPM;

CL Pg 4,EPM

(IRAP)

Rate data is provided in the NASA Technical Library; however as of 5/13/22 this document has not been posted to the Government-Wide point of entry website even after completing Step 6 of NASA's Cover letter instructions for access. The EPM IRAP tab provides the Incumbent with two potential options for Compensation (Historic Incumbent Data & Contractor Incumbent Data) which are either currently unknown or unable to be considered by any other offerors for use or strategic development except the Incumbent. As of the date of this question, and the current NASA Proposal due date, the Incumbent Offeror will have had access to both the RFP, the Historic Incumbent Compensation, and time to consider using an alternative to the Historic Incumbent data for at least double the amount of time all other offerors will have to review or consider this information and incorporate the information into the Cost/Price Volume and EPM. Will the Government provide the Historical Incumbent Data to ensure all other offerors are not disadvantaged by the Incumbents access to this critical information?

Please see response #5 above.

26 Attachment

L-4 CHARLES

EPM;Section L33.4.2 Technical Approach (TA) - Mission Suitability Subfactor 2;Attachment

L-1 CHARLES

Resource Planning Document Attachment L-1-1 TA2+Resourc es (1);

TOPT -

TA2,TRST-TA2;

Attch L-1 pgs 1 - 13; Attch L-1-1 pg 1

Will the Government confirm that the TRST-TA2 and TOPT - TA2 worksheets of the EPM are to be completed with ONLY an Offeror's Management/Technical Oversight required to complete Subfactor 2 TA2 Resources as identified within Attachment L-1-1, and NOT the workforce required to complete the requirements of the Attachment L-1 CHARLES Resource Planning Document?

Offerors are to complete the TRST-TA2 and TOPT-TA2 worksheets utilizing their management and technical approach to the requirements described in the scenario described in TA2.

27 Attachment L-1 Resource Planning Document

IMPLEMENTATI

ON slide (slide 2)

Slide 2 states: "Not all SLCs with 250 hours are reflected in these charts.” Question: Is it the government's intent that offerors display these partial WYEs in their org chart?

Please see response #3 above.

28 RFP Section L.33.2(a)

Comment: Proposal Volume II, Past Performance, and the Cognizant Federal Agency and Audit Office Template (CFAOT) of Volume III are requested by May 23, 2022. Question: Given the impending extension of the due date for the entire proposal, would the Government consider extending the requested dates for Volume II and Volume III CFAOT?

Per L.33.2, Proposal Volume II, Past Performance, and the Cognizant Federal Agency and Audit Office Template (CFAOT) of Volume III are requested by May 23, 2022, but not officially due until the proposal submittal date. The government extended the submission date by Amendment 3.

29 Pre-proposal Conference Slide Deck

Would the Government kindly release the slide deck presented at the pre-proposal conference so Offerors can incorporate any clarifications/new/additional information?

The government posted the preproposal conference slides with modifications on www.nasa.gov/jsc/procurement/charles

30 DRD-M13

c.i.(2)

DRD-M13 requires "Metrics used to determine contract phase-in progress along with a schedule with key milestones, personnel responsible for those milestones, and process flow chart to illustrate actions and utilization of the phase-in period including informing NASA of milestone status" A detailed schedule of this nature for a contract of this size with multiple sites requires several 11x17 pages in order to give NASA the detail that they need to evaluate our planned phase-in milestones and tasks. Including this phase in schedule in the page count greatly reduces the amount of detail offerors are able to include--ultimately forcing offerors to remove significant detail from their schedule to meet page count. Would the Government kindly exclude the phase in schedule from the page count to allow a complete and accurate depiction of key milestones during phase-in?

The Government does not anticipate changing the page requirement for this DRD at this time.

31 L-33.2 L-784 "Proposal Volume II, Past Performance, and the Cognizant Federal Agency and Audit Office Template (CFAOT) of Volume III are requested by May 16, 2022, but not officially due until the proposal submittal date." Is it acceptable to submit Volume II and the CFAOT only at the proposal due date of 1 June?

Per L.33.2, Proposal Volume II, Past Performance, and the Cognizant Federal Agency and Audit Office Template (CFAOT) of Volume III are requested by May 23, 2022, but not officially due until the proposal submittal date.

32 Attachment

L-4 CHARLES

EPM, IRAP,

Column J Usage %, Column M Direct Rates, Column N Base of Direct Rates

N/A The solicitation does not provide the Historical Incumbent Rates. Non-incumbent offerors who propose usage of incumbent employees require that information for their bids. Please provide the current year average incumbent direct labor rates for the contract labor categories. The information can be sourced from the incumbent contractor’s Re-procurement Data Package DRD deliverable.

Please see response #5 above.

33 Attachment

L-4 CHARLES

EPM

N/A Non-incumbent offerors who propose usage of incumbent employees will require the seniority levels of all FTEs in each labor category for fringe benefits calculations.

Please provide that information. The information can be sourced from the incumbent contractor’s Re-procurement Data Package DRD deliverable.

The seniority levels are provided in the document "CHARLES Composite Incumbent Rates" which was added to the technical library with RFP Amendment 2.

34 Cell B39 Attachment L-2- 1 Past Performance Matrix

The instructions in this cell ask bidders to fill in the percentage of labor hours their company will supply for the functions listed in each section of the SOW below on the CHARLES contract. The cells below the instructions have Yes/No options. Are bidders permitted to alter this portion of the spreadsheet? Alternatively, where should bidders supply this information?

Please see response #14 above.

35 CHARLES RFP N/A Request Government releases a conformed copy of the RFP with changes from Amendment 1 (and any subsequent amendments) incorporated to facilitate Model Contract submission.

The government has no plans to release a new conformed copy of the RFP at this time.

36 L.21 L-774 L.21 lists Volume V as "Completed, Signed Model Contract, Reps/Certs, and Additional Information." What "additional information" is required with Volume V other than the sections requiring fill-in listed in L.33.8?

All required information is included in L.33.8.

37 CHARLES_DRF

P_Questions_ and_Respons es, Question

The Government's answer to Question 2 states, "The sections that have no page limitations ("none") shall be placed at the end of the corresponding volume." For Volume II, Table L-2 lists Attachment L-2-1 Prime and Subcontractor Past Performance Matrix before page limited sections.

Should Offerors address Attachment L-2-1 after the page limited sections?

Attachment L-2-1, and Attachment L-2-2 can be submitted as separate excel files as stated in Table L-2.

38 Table L-2 L786-L787 Is it the Government's intent that each row under Volumes I - V in Table L-2 be submitted as a separate file? For example, should Volume IV Responsibility Considerations be comprised of three MS Word files (Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Information (DRD-M20);

Business System Adequacy; and Responsibility Information...)?

All files should include descriptive and clear titles of the included content. The Offeror can elect to submit multiple files within each volume folder.

39 CHARLES_DRF

P_Questions_ and_Respons es, Question

The Government's response to question 20 instructs that each DRD in Volume I "shall be placed as separate, self-contained, and standalone document within the folder, appropriately named per submission instructions."

Should offerors provide TA1, TA2, and TA3 in one MS Word file or should these items be provided in separate files like the DRDs?

All files should include descriptive and clear titles of the included content. TA1 and TA2 may be combined into one MS word file, but TA3 must be submitted separately in its native format.

40 Appendix C- Personnel Requirements

Page 146 and

Quality Control Inspector job description references CBA Aircraft Mech III. The corresponding CBA Appendix A contains labor category Quality Control Inspector.

Should the Quality Control Inspector map to the Aircraft Mechanic or the Quality Control Inspector?

The Quality Control Inspector SLC maps to the CBA Quality Control Inspector.

41 Preproposal Conference

N/A Will the Government please provide the slides from the preproposal conference?

Please see response #30 above.

42 Attachment_L

1_CHARLES_R

esource_Plan ning_Docume nt

3 The 4th slide list a total count of 187 IDIQ and 15 Casuals. When we count each individual page, we come up with 190 IDIQ and 12 Casuals. Please confirm total count and update accordingly.

The Total Count block will be updated to reflect 190 IDIQ and 12 Casual positions. This count is the anticipated organizational structure and personnel distribution at the start of the CHARLES contract; however, all labor is subject to reassignment based upon mission requirements.