Amendment1.pdf

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

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

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

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

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

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

Attachment Page

PAGE 2 OF 11 91990020R00310001

RFP# 91990020R0031 – Q&A

General Proposal Questions: (Answers in italics)

1. We are an e-learning experience platform, content-agnostic... does it mean that in order to bid, we must partner with a content provider to be considered (since the RFI states the Dept. intends to award one contract, per page 20)?

The Department is explicitly asking in subtask 3.1 for the vendor to develop content for the course.

2. How many educators do you estimate to participate in the program (since the Dept. is asking for a firm fixed price, per page 13)?

This question is unclear. We ask the vendor to solicit insights from educators or education actors more broadly at several different points in the contract (learner analysis, user-testing, continuous improvement, and deployment). For the first three tasks in the list we are asking the vendor to propose a sufficient number based on industry standards and in accordance with their proposed budget. In terms of deployment, we estimate that the limited e-learning offerings that the Department currently offers on student data privacy serves about 100,000 teachers each year. If the optional task around hosting is exercised, then the contractor should provide competitive pricing for hosting for serving a few thousand people a month.

3. Balance of work: In considering the focus of the work and project personnel expertise, where does the Department see the balance between technical expertise and content expertise needed for a successful proposal and completion of this project?

The Department will provide the content expertise for this project through our Student Privacy Policy

Office. The technical expertise that the Department is seeking from the project personnel is outlined in the instructions to offerors.

4. Scope of work: Is the intent of this RFP to build a bespoke system of student privacy education that includes any or all of the following: a) an independent learning management system platform that directly or indirectly competes with Blackboard, Google Classroom etc? b) an ensemble of algorithms to determine which users are served which content? c) privacy training with an adaptive User-Interface/ User-Experience? d) a web-based and mobile-app based privacy education training tool?

A is certainly outside the scope of this project. B is within scope since the vendor will likely need to develop feedback loops and branch paths to serve the user the content that they need to demonstrate competence. C is described in the scope of work under the adaptivity section and modularity section. D is also within scope although the Department is suggesting that a web-based mobile responsive tool is likely sufficient to meet our training needs.

5. Timing: Beyond the overarching timing communicated for the project (p. 51) and the task-oriented timing (communicated throughout on the contact schedule), what are the Department’s planned high-level deliverables for year 1, year 2, and year 3? If Tasks 1-5 are to be accomplished in Year 1, how would the Department view the relative expenditure of effort per task?

PAGE 3 OF 11 91990020R00310001

The Department anticipates that each of the option years would be a repeat of the instructional design process, but with new course content that meets the Department's technical assistance needs. As is customary in design, the first (foundational) tasks are often completed against a tighter schedule and then the later tasks are completed on an iterative and ongoing basis and often require the majority of the hours from the contractor.

6. Price/cost (pg. 13): What is the Department’s price ceiling or price range for the project and can they convey that information to help with understanding the scope of the project?

To assist you in the preparation of your proposal, the Government has estimated the level of effort to perform this contract as 6,000 to 7,000 for the base. This estimate is not restrictive for proposal purposes.

7. External Evaluation: Is the Department expecting external evaluation (to complement internal continuous improvement efforts, pg. 74) to be a part of proposed work?

The Department does not anticipate a need for external evaluators on this project.

8. Work dissemination: What expectations (if any) does the Department have related to dissemination of work, to include public communications, research results, or other public facing-dissemination?

Sub-task 5.2 describes the requirements for the contractor to support dissemination by providing assistance to those SEAs and LEAs who wish to connect the courses to their systems for feedback and reporting.

Proposed Work Questions:

1. Regarding Background (p. 50): The Department states that there should be a “suite of e-learning courses that meet the needs of each stakeholder group.” Is there a prospective number of e-learning courses that comprise the suite in the Department’s view? How many priority stakeholder groups are anticipated?

The Department has not set a number of stakeholder groups or courses connected to those groups since a portion of this contract is for the vendor to provide the stakeholder analysis that would inform the decision on priority stakeholder groups.

2. Regarding Competencies (p. 50): What specific competencies does the Department see as integral to the e-learning courses?

The Department seeks to work with a vendor to help our privacy experts to define the specific competencies related to student data privacy that are most relevant. The final decision on this will take place after the stakeholder and learner analysis phases are completed.

PAGE 4 OF 11 91990020R00310001

3. Regarding Tailoring/Adaptability (pg. 51): What specific demographic identifiers is the

Department including in this process (Individual? Institutional? Stakeholder group?)?

The Department anticipates that the system will at minimum need to tailor the instruction based off of the stakeholder group identifier. However the RFP also includes several mentions of items like diagnostic and formative assessments that can help the e-learning platform to adjust the content to the results of a given individual who is taking the course (“It seems like this user already has this competency, they won’t need the corresponding course content or vice versa.”)

4. Regarding Task 2.1: How will the Department evaluate the stakeholder analysis plan? The description suggests that the contractor shall “cluster and rank” stakeholders according to priority and common issues. Does this imply a preferred method for evaluation of finding from the stakeholder analysis?

The use of “cluster and rank” is not meant to imply a specific method for performing or evaluating the stakeholder analysis. The vendor should provide a compelling rationale for their proposed methods of gathering input from stakeholders in accordance with government policy (e.g. Paperwork Reduction Act

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)).

5. Please note that no task 2.2 appears in the document SF1449. Please clarify this omission and provide sufficient information to respond to the missing component.

The Department apologizes for this omission. While 2.2 is missing, there is no content corresponding to that heading that is missing. It was essentially a mis numbering.

6. Regarding Task 2.3: Is the expectation of the Department that learner analysis be an ongoing component of this contract? Is it the expectation of the Department that learner analysis is equivalent to review for quality improvement? Which industry standards, in particular, is the

Department referring to regarding efforts to gather information from potential learners?

The Department uses the term learner analysis to describe the initial gathering of information and input from potential learners, so as to develop a course that meets the needs of individuals who are likely users of this course. However, this is not to imply that potential learners are only involved in that portion of the contract; rather, learners are expected to be consulted at other points in the contract including in user testing and continuous improvement efforts.

The Department’s use of the term “industry standards” is not meant to refer to a defined set of technical standards. Rather the term is used to note that the contractor will need to provide a compelling rationale that the methods that will be used by the contractor are respected within their field and not idiosyncratic or generally regarded as inferior.

7. Regarding Task 2.3a: Learner incentives (pg. 57): What (if any) restrictions or expectations does the Department have in place related to learner recruitment incentives (beyond contractor responsibility)?

PAGE 5 OF 11 91990020R00310001

The Department will need to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The contractor may also need to support the Department with reviews from our internal Ethics division.

8. Regarding Task 2.3b: Please clarify the expected output and outcomes of the contractors’

“analysis of e-learning systems.” Is it the expectation of the Department that the contractor will conduct a research exercise to identify the webhosting, LMS and LRS systems in use by each of the priority stakeholder groups?

That is correct. The vendor is expected to provide a compelling rationale for their methodology of gathering this information.

9. Regarding Task 3.1: What is the level of interface expected of the contractor with the COR and

SPPO if the contractors themselves are “content experts” on privacy law and regulations?

If the contractors are experts on privacy law, they will still need to meet the same requirements and their content will need to be approved by the COR who will consult with SPPO and other relevant offices.

10. Regarding Task 3.2: Please clarify Departmental preferences and expectations for

“personalization” within the limitations of “minimizing personal data collection of users.” Is it the expectation of the Department that an ensemble of algorithms will be built to predict optimal user experience and uptake? If so, to which standards of algorithmic performance and audit will the contractor be held accountable?

It is expected that the vendor will define the level of adaptivity that they think is necessary for the course to maximize uptake. We leave it up to the vendor whether or not they can create a compelling rationale for less complicated algorithms (e.g. branching) or more complicated algorithms (e.g. machine learning).

The Department does not seek to define any particular quality standards for these efforts; rather, the vendor will need to provide a compelling rationale that their process and associated standards is sufficient to accomplish the Department's aims outlined in task 3.2.

11. Regarding Task 3.3: What is the process the Department will use when evaluating the proposal for web-development and animation? Will proposals that do not “create fully custom web development” be graded as less competitive? Can you please clarify the expectations around “add significant custom elements to a course produced in an authority tool”?

The Department’s use of “or” indicates that fully custom is not necessary to be competitive. However, we also seek to avoid many of the tired tropes of e-learning that rely on stock templates and images. The vendor must provide a compelling rationale that the level of customization that they are able to provide will be sufficient to provide high levels of user engagement.

12. Regarding Task 3.3: The statement that “the contractor should also design the courses so that they can authenticate a user with the least amount of information possible” is disconnected from the associated statements about security and privacy. Can the Department clarify their expectations?

Is two-factor authentication a burdensome authentication method? Is a biometric identification

PAGE 6 OF 11 91990020R00310001

mechanism permitted provided components do not otherwise interfere with the needs of disabled users?

It is the Department’s preference to use an authentication method that is secure but does not require the

Department or its contractors to secure additional data.

In this case two-factor authentication is likely too burdensome because of the necessary protocols for securing the data around the second factor. Additionally, because the Department anticipates that this course will be available to the general public it may not be logistically possible to establish a rule for two-factor authentication that works for everyone.

13. Regarding Task 3.4c: Is the expectation of the Department that the contractor shall build a bespoke system with each of the features described or can an existing LMS platform be used as a basis for construction of these courses? If an existing LMS platform can be used, it is the obligation of the contractor or the sub-contractor to provide monthly evidence to the Department of compliance with FISMA, NIST and OMB guidance? Can a component of the budget for this

RFP be to build an LMS to the point where an ATO (authority to operate) can be obtained?

The Department does not have a contract with an outward facing LMS system. Using a particular LMS as the basis of the course may conflict with requirements in 3.3 to design the course for continuous improvement: “The contractor also should design the courses for continuous improvement. This includes designing so that wherever possible the courses can be updated by an organization that may not have access to the specific authoring tool or software that created them. (e.g. published in HTML and not as a storyline file).”

The security and reporting requirements are described in detail in the webhosting section of the RFP.

ATO is specifically addressed in the “Security, Assessment, & Authorization” section.

14. Regarding Task 3.4c: Please clarify the expectations associated with the statement “the contractor and or any subcontractor must fully participate and integrate with the Department Enterprise

Cybersecurity Data Lake and CDM program”.

The Continuous Monitoring CDM Program as well as the Enterprise Security Data Collection

(Enterprise Cybersecurity Data Lake) are the ED Programs in response to multiple Cyber Security

Directives requiring monitoring of ED Data. Specific questions could be sent to the appropriate personnel within OCIO. Please clarify what specific questions you have about this process. These can be discussed during the kickoff meeting.

15. Regarding Task 3.4c: Does the Department have an existing relationship with a FedRAMP Cloud

Service provider that is the preferred vendor? (The link provided under 3.4a.1 https://cloud.cio.gov/fedramp yields a 404 error).

The Department has multiple and ongoing agreements with cloud service providers. However, it would be inaccurate to state that one of them is preferred.

PAGE 7 OF 11 91990020R00310001

16. Regarding Task 4.1: Is the expectation of the contractor that all user testing shall comply with

45CFR46 and relevant subparts, including pursuit of a notice of exemption from review? Does the Department presently convene an Institutional Review Board to perform these reviews or is it the expectation that the contractor pursue review from a commercial IRB (e.g., Integreview or

Western)?

For the user testing and learner analysis the only clearance process will be meeting the requirements for the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

17. Regarding Task 5, Quality Improvement: what are the expectations of the Department for beta-testing? Are beta-tests expected to follow an A/B testing format? Does the Department expect the contractor to use NIST 800.53 standards for security and privacy of the data? If so, is budgetary allowance permitted for contractor training to this new standard?

The relevant considerations for testing can be found throughout the RFP, especially under the section

“Application Design Development and Support.” For any other consideration not specified, the vendor should provide a compelling rationale how their efforts will help to meet the goals and requirements specified in the RFP, and the existing strengths of the vendor to execute on those considerations. Your budget should include the costs you will incur during the course of the contract.

18. Please note that no task 5.1 appears in the document SF1449. Please clarify this omission and provide sufficient information to respond to the missing component.

The Department apologizes for this omission. While 5.1 is missing, there is no content corresponding to that heading that is missing. It was essentially a mis numbering.

19. Regarding Task 5.2, Implementation support: please clarify the statement “the contractor shall aid

IT professionals from a host of different education organizations.” The description includes

“FAQ, email responses for troubleshooting, hosting one on one calls to troubleshoot.” How will the Department evaluate the “plan for technical assistance”? Can technical assistance be subcontracted?

This section will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria specified in the RFP.

20. Do you have content for review at this time for the content of the courses? I want to see what you currently have regarding this topic information.

The Department has not created any content explicitly for this course, although it is reasonable to assume that the content will draw upon and align with other content that the Department has produced around student data privacy.

21. How many vendors have been sourced for this effort?

PAGE 8 OF 11 91990020R00310001

We heard from a variety of vendors during the market research phase. However, we are not sure how many of them are likely to continue. It is also important to note that this competition is un-restricted, and the solicitation is posted on BETA.Sam.

22. We would like to anticipate a ballpark range in which you have for this venture, we have multiple levels of production and can propose something very high end or very low end. It needs to be understood by your level of expectation.

Please see the answer to Question number Six. (General Question Section)

23. Will we have a dedicated SME that will be making major decisions on behalf of all the SME's?

The Student Privacy Policy Office will act as the SME for the contract. See subtask 2.1 and 3.1 of the

RFP for more on the Department’s ability to provide SMEs.

24. How does this course material fit into the bigger picture of your organization's goals?

The courses will be used to meet the strategic goal of the Department to ensure that all education actors understand the rights they have under data privacy laws and can have demonstrated competencies in how to effectively safeguard student data.

25. What mobile devices do you expect users to be interacting with while taking these courses? Have you completed any target demographic research at this time regarding device usage, and interest?

The Department believes that there will not need to be much more development work beyond mobile responsive website development. We have not completed this research, but this may be a suitable portion of the work plan under the learner analysis.

26. What will your organization be doing with the modules once released? Will you be in charge of updates?

Upon release, the modules will be used to support our existing technical assistance efforts in partnership with SEAs and LEAs. Any updates that must take place beyond the continuous improvement phase of the contract will be taken care of through a separate acquisition.

27. Where will these be housed? Will we have access to the LMS for testing?

Under the optional task, the contractor will be in charge of hosting the contents. If that task is not exercised then all hosting-related questions, including testing, will be taken care of by OCIO. However, as part of the technical assistance portion of the contract the vendor may need to test the course in the various LMS that are identified through the analysis of e-learning systems.

PAGE 9 OF 11 91990020R00310001

28. What is your expectation for interaction with the partnership if we were selected for this project?

The schedule of deliverables and timelines for contact with the COR and other relevant Ed staff are detailed in the RFP.

29. Ranking in importance, what stands out to you the most? Price, Speed, or Quality?

The relative importance of each of these factors is specified in the RFP. The “Technical Evaluation” sections reads:

The following is the order of importance for the applicable technical factors:

1) Soundness of the Technical Approach, 2) Technical Qualifications of Proposed Staff, 3) Management

Plan, 4) Corporate Experience & Past Performance, 5) Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

In addition, the RFP reads: For this award, technical merit is more important than price. However, to be considered for an award, an offer must be fairly and reasonably priced. As the technical merit becomes more equal among proposals price becomes more significant. The contracting officer will determine whether any difference in technical merit is worth the difference in cost or price.

30. Do you have any branding restrictions, partnerships with other companies, or other stakeholders we should be aware of that have control over the go ahead on this project?

All branding and other considerations about “the go ahead will be handled through the Department clearance process that will take place once the deliverables are completed.

31. How many rounds of revisions and/or changes during the process for reviews / revisions would you prefer?

We would prefer to keep our rounds of feedback the foundational documents (e.g. work plan, stakeholder analysis, learner analysis) as minimal as possible. However, certain elements of the course may require a few rounds of feedback as we begin to make more of the design decisions.

32. What is your preferred method of working with a vendor? Do you use waterfall or are you open to a more agile approach to delivery of projects?

The Department does not have a preferred method. The vendor should craft a compelling rationale for how their proposed method will help meet the Departments expectations. For this reason, the design and development schedule has only been specified as ongoing, so that each vendor can propose a method that they believe will meet the Department’s goals and related requirements.

33. Do you have a mandate that will require us to use a particular authoring tool when developing e-learning courses for your organization? Are there certain authoring tools that your organization prefers?

PAGE 10 OF 11 91990020R00310001

Since the output of this content is likely to be web-based e-learning, one presupposition is that an authoring tool can put out a course that in HTML5 that is responsive. The RFP also notes that some custom development may be necessary for dynamic content delivery.

34. Could you please describe the level of tracking that is implemented on the current LMS (pages visited / assessments, completion. etc.)? Do you have guidelines or a wish list of tracking parameters?

There is currently not an LMS associated with this course. The Department would not track the completion of the course through its LMS (since that is an internal-facing LMS). However, users of the course (SEAs, LEAs or schools) may wish to connect the course with their own LMS. Subtask 2.3b will help the Department to establish basic guidelines or a wish list based off of the results of that analysis.

35. Is your organization considering Mobile Apps that are either independent or connected to an LMS to deliver content?

This is not part of the explicit considerations in the RFP.

36. Is the scope only to develop new learning modules or is enhancement / correction of existing courses also covered in this proposal? If so, is the nature of fix technical or content?

The Department offers some self-paced e-learning around student data privacy. These courses may be useful to inform the development of the content for the course, but the course will not be simply repackaging that content; rather, the RFP specifies that the contractor is asked to develop new content for this course.

37. Do you have a preferred technology or development approach for this scope, or do you want us to suggest the approach?

The Department has not specified a technology or development approach. Vendors are encouraged to provide a compelling rationale for why their proposed approach will lead to the best results.

38. How long should it take a learner to complete this training from start as a novice to a content expert? 1 hour? 20 hours? 16 weeks? Do you have a sense of time you would like to allocate learners to be trained?

The scope of work section in the RFP describes the guiding principles of competence, adaptivity, and modularity. Applicants are encouraged to provide a compelling rationale for how their proposal will help the Department meet each of those goals and related requirements. As a part of this rationale the vendor should indicate the amount of time that they would recommend for each module and for the fully developed course.

PAGE 11 OF 11 91990020R00310001

39. Do you require us to meet face to face at any time during the first year of effort? If so, how often?

Virtual meetings are not needed as a virtual meeting does not require travel planning and accommodations.

Vendors should assume that all meetings will be virtual.

1.2

C:\PERFORM\FORMS\S30.FRP

Forms Management

C:PERFORMFORMSS30.FRP

Acrobat PDFWriter 2.01 for Windows D:19971010095222 D:19990614133004 Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER

5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended.

is not extended.

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

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY

CODE

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

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer) Previous edition unusable

Washington DC 20065