AHRQ-20-10001_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) VI

AHRQ-20-10001

Responses to Proposal Questions February 27, 2019

Thank you for your interest in this Request for Proposal (RFP). Below is a key to the responses to the questions found on the following pages:

• “No solicitation amendment necessary” – This response is given when:

1) the requirements are clearly articulated in the solicitation to the maximum extent possible, or

2) the information is not available, or

3) it is dependent on the offeror’s proposed approach.

• “Please see solicitation amendment” – This response is given if the response to the question affects a revision to the RFP. Please see the amended RFP posted to Federal Business Opportunities.

• A response to the question is provided - A response/answer is given if clarification is necessary, but the response does not require a revision to the RFP.

Question

RFP Page Number

Relevant Section Number or Title

Question

1 2 Proposal Submission

The proposal is due April 8 and will be awarded Dec

1. The RFP states that “Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation must state that they are valid for a period of at least 120 days”.

Because the period between submission and award exceeds 120 days, how does AHRQ anticipate making awards months before the contract start date?

Answer: Please see solicitation amendment.

2 5 Table of items Under the presentation items, Tasks D.2.3.5 and

D.2.3.1- D.2.3.4, the preparation/presentation of slides for a draft/final report requires more resources than those for a protocol.

Answer: See response to question 8.

3 5 Task Orders and

Prices Is it reasonable to expect that the total amount of funding for all funded centers will not exceed $40,000,000 over 5 years, and that the funding will be relatively evenly distributed across the 5 years?

Answer: No solicitation amendment necessary.

4 5-6 Task Orders and

Prices Why is systematic review surveillance lumped with medium topic refinement for the same firm fixed price? It seems possible that surveillance work might require a time frame longer than for a topic refinement. Is it correct to assume that a task order for systematic review surveillance would be limited to a single assessment of the “currency of the questions and findings of an existing systematic review” as suggested on pg 26?

Answer: The grouping is based on the government’s estimate that the effort for this task is commensurate with a medium topic refinement. The systematic review surveillance task is described on page 26-27 and in the EPC Procedures Guide.

5 5-6 Task Orders and Prices

Why is “Research Letter” listed under item no. 6 and item no. 15?

Answer: Please see solicitation amendment on page 6.

6 5-6 Table of items Item D.2.2. “Research letter,” appears both under item 6 on page 5 and under item 15 on page 6 (“research letter preparation”). The former is Firm Fixed Price, the latter is To Be Negotiated.

What is the difference between “Research letter” and “Research letter preparation”?

Answer: See response to question 5.

7 5-7 Table of items;

period of performance

In order to estimate an accurate budget for each product, please provide the period of performance (i.e., estimated duration in weeks) for the following items as we are unable to locate this information for some of these products in the EHC or USPSTF Procedures Guides and some of the items that have been grouped together for pricing purposes have very different periods of performance.

• Research Letter

RFP Page Number

Relevant Section Number or Title

Question

• Topic Development Brief

• Rapid Response

• Manuscript preparation

• Small Topic Refinement

• Medium Topic Refinement

• Large Topic Refinement

• Systematic Review Surveillance

• Limited Systematic Review Update

• Rapid Review

• Technical Brief

• Small Systematic Review Update

• Limited Systematic Review

• Limited Technology Assessment

• Small Systematic Review

• Medium Systematic Review Update

• Small Technology Assessment

• Medium Systematic Review

• Large Systematic Review Update

• Medium Technology Assessment

• Large Systematic Review

• Large Technology Assessment

• Small Topic Bundle for USPSTF

• Medium Topic Bundle for USPSTF

• Large Topic Bundle for USPSTF

Answer: Sample timelines for most of the products are listed in the EPC Procedures Guide. Specific timelines would be outlined in individual requests for task order.

8 5, 28, 30, Table Item #1;

Webinar Presentation

a. What is the difference between Item 1 (D.2.3.5 Webinar Presentation) on page 5; the webinar presentation described as part of the general systematic review process on page 28; the webinar in lieu of a final report described under the D.1.4.2.

Technology Assessments section on page 30, and the upon request webinar presentation described on page 34 under the D.2.3. Presentations section?

b. Webinar presentations, as described in the RFP, vary by scope of work (protocol, draft or final systematic review report, technology assessment in lieu of a final report, etc), and thus, impact the level of preparation and resources required. For budgeting purposes, can AHRQ clarify when a webinar is part of the SOW of a given product and when a webinar is a separate product that should be budgeted as item D.2.3.5?

c. To assist in budgeting for Item D.2.3.5, can AHRQ clarify the level of effort for the standalone products described above?

Answer: A draft webinar presentation is required at a draft stage for feedback (D.1.4.2). The TA program also requires a presentation of the final report in lieu of some of the other tasks of the review (page 30).

AHRQ may request other webinars according to needs of the end user, which would be purchased

RFP Page Number

Relevant Section Number or Title

Question separately under task D.2.3 as defined in the individual RFTO. See solicitation amendment in section D.2.3 of the SOW.

9 6 Table Item 11 The technical brief appears only under item 11.

Issues around complexity of PICOs, analysis, and variations in yield also apply to technical briefs.

a. Does AHRQ anticipate that all technical briefs will be funded at the same level, or will technical briefs be funded based on scope of the project?

b. If all technical briefs will be funded at the same level, will the EPC have the ability to limit the complexity of the analysis or the PICOS?

Answer: All technical briefs are anticipated to be funded at the same price and chosen when the scope fits the requirement of a technical brief.

10 6-7; 21, 26 Table items 10 On pages 6-7, Item D.1.2 is defined as a USPSTF Topic Refinement. On pages 21 and 26 the USPSTF Topic Refinement Task Number is defined as D.1.2.1. The Period of Performance for a USPSTF topic refinement is typically six months and in past EPC RFPs has been budgeted separately from EHC topic refinements. Which is the correct Task Number?

Answer: See solicitation amendment on pages 6-7.

11 6-7, 22, 30 Table items 11 On pages 6 and 30, D.1.5 is defined as a Systematic

Review Update. On pages 6-7, D.1.5 is also used to describe a Systematic Review for the USPSTF, but on page 22 the Task Number for a Systematic Review for the USPSTF is described as D.1.4.1.

Which is the correct Task Number for both products (Systematic Review Update; Systematic Review)?

Answer: See solicitation amendment on pages 6-7.

12 7 Definition of systematic review size

On page 7, the anticipated number of included studies for a small systematic review is defined as 16-35 studies and a medium systematic review is defined as 41-90 studies.

Should the small systematic review include 16-40 studies, or should the medium systematic review include 36-90 studies?

Answer: See solicitation amendment on page 7.

13 7 Systematic Review

Size It is stated that factors used to determine systematic review size may include “3) level of internal review required before peer review.” How would this level be determined and by whom or what process? Would this be determined and stated in RFTO or at a later time point?

Answer: The level of internal review required before peer review would be determined before RFTO is released and described on the Secure Site when appropriate and discussed on the kick-off call.

14 7, 8 Systematic Review/TA Size

We note that number of studies anticipated is still the main factor for determining size, rather than more useful criteria such as complexity, number of

RFP Page Number

Relevant Section Number or Title

Question comparisons, etc. Several of the factors listed are also puzzling. For instance, does ‘single search strategy’ mean single source (pg 7)? Please clarify “well focused”. We would think that all reviews should be well-focused. When are the determinations of these factors made, by whom, and at what point in process? Are there any provisions for changing size after award?

Answer: See response to question 15.

15 7-8 Size of a Topic

Refinement Size, a Systematic Review, and a Technology Assessment

This section list factors that may affect the size of the research product. Many of these factors (number of studies [rather than number of articles], number of interventions, number of comparators, number of outcomes) become apparent only after the review is well into the synthesis stage. Predictions of size in the topic refinement stage are imperfect.

a. If the scope of the project is to be determined during the course of the project, how does AHRQ anticipate making accommodations?

b. For example, if the budget is fixed, will the EPC have the ability to limit the complexity of the analysis or the PICOs?

c. If the final budget is to be determined after the total number of studies (or articles) is determined, does AHRQ anticipate reducing or increasing budgets, as appropriate?

d. If such changes will be made, who makes the determination at AHRQ and at what stage?

e. How will such a decision-making process fit within into the overall timeline?

f. Will the timeline be expanded or contracted according to the final decision on scope?

g. Will the award amount be increased or decreased according to the final decision on the product size;

and if so, at what stage of the product’s timeline with the award amount be adjusted?

h. Will AHRQ reconsider the appropriateness of fixed price for this activity?

Answer: The “size” of the project is determined prior to release of the RFTO. The categorization of size is determined by multiple factors. If one factor is larger than anticipated, the project will remain the same size by limiting other factors.

16 8 B 4. Provisions Applicable to Direct Costs (a) 11.

Information Technology

Page 8 states that “Information Technology hardware or software” shall be unallowable as direct costs. The RFP also states in multiple places EPC use of technology.

Page 11, “EPCs are expected to optimize the efficiency of the review process as well as convey relevant information in the most useful formats for users. Technologies that AHRQ and the EPC Program have previously funded include machine learning tools to accelerate the article screening and the Systematic Review Data Repository. The

RFP Page Number

Relevant Section Number or Title

Question process, content, and format of EPC reports will need to continue to evolve to keep up with the needs of partners and stakeholder. “ Page 11 “EPCs shall use technology and other resources or approaches to maximize efficiency and rigor of systematic reviews, review updates, or other rapid evidence products.”

Page 13 “Technologies that the EPC program has previously invested in and will continue to explore include machine learning tools, re-use of data from the Systematic Review Data Repository (https://srdr.ahrq.gov), and other rapid review methods or text mining software tools. The EPC program is committed to continued innovation including developing, testing and implementing innovative approaches, methods, tools, training and guidance.”

Several software platforms have been designed specifically to make the review process more efficient across all workflows of a review, not just title/abstract screening. And, other software offers innovative ways for data visualization.

a. If AHRQ will not permit purchase of software or hardware, how should contractors account for the costs of keeping up with these technologies?

b. If AHRQ specifically approves IT costs, how will this be accommodated in FP tasks?

Answer: No solicitation amendment necessary.

17 9 B.4.b. We currently invoice for full travel costs, including costs exceeding the federal limits. AHRQ determines which costs are allowable and reimburses us only up to the allowable limit. Will this continue to work for

EPC VI?

Answer: Travel shall be invoiced within the federal limits on all AHRQ contracts. This is a federal requirement.

(https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/regulations/federal-travel-regulation-ftr).

18 9 Attachment E, Pg 4

Provisions Applicable To Direct Costs, Food and Beverages

Please clarify the circumstances under which a contractor cannot accept food or beverages at conferences or meetings. Later (Attachment E, SOW) it is noted that contractor may travel to conference to present findings (pg 4). Does text on page 9 mean that contractor could not participate in refreshments or meals provided at that conference? If so, how would this be enforced?

Answer: No solicitation amendment necessary. Page 9 restrictions applies to unallowable direct costs including conference and meetings planned and hosted by the contractors.

19 28 D.1.4 Systematic Reviews

Step 1 indicates use of ‘Limited Key Informants’. How many is ‘limited’? Will this task be added to the schedule?

Answer: See solicitation amendment on page 28.

RFP Page Number

Relevant Section Number or Title

Question

20 28 D.1.4 Systematic Reviews

The text notes that one purpose of the webinars is to gather feedback to improve final report. Are the webinars presented before or after the draft report is accepted for peer review? At what point do the EPCs need to respond to any comments and questions from the webinar? Is a formal response document required for that process?

Answer: Description of timing options for the webinar presentation of draft report is described in EPC Procedures guide. EPCs are required to provide disposition of comments received during peer and public review periods.

21 29 D.1.4 Systematic Reviews

Other than the disposition of comments document we are unclear what would be documented about the process for reviewing and analyzing peer review comments. Please clarify what is required.

Answer: See solicitation amendment on page 29.

22 29 Enter data into

SRDR

What are the ‘native search functions’ of SRDR with which contractors need to comply? Is this for SRDR or SRDR+ or some other version? Does the first sentence of this section (“using data extraction forms”) mean that EPCs are now mandated to use a particular software/program for data entry?

Answer: See solicitation amendment on page 29.

23 29 D.1.4 Systematic

Reviews Who provides the feedback form to be completed by EPCs? It notes that the form is to be completed “with the final report”. Is this when the final report is first submitted, accepted, posted, or some other time?

Answer: The final due date of the feedback form will be specified in the individual task order delivery schedule.

24 30 D.1.5 Systematic Review Update

It is rare that an update does not identify any new element to be included. Noted in text as meaning that a new review would be done instead of an update are new questions and comparisons. What happens if other elements such as new outcome(s) are identified by Partner or Key Informants? This would suggest that a new review is more appropriate as it is likely that there would be a need to re-screen. Please clarify at what point, and with whose input, an update may change to being a new systematic review.

Answer: Updates will be selected when it is anticipated that the scope will remain the same as the original review.

25 34 D.2.1 Manuscript preparation

Please confirm that providing galley proofs of manuscript(s) to Task Order Officer is now required.

If so, please clarify if this is for manuscript submitted as part of Task Order, for first manuscript from project, or for all manuscripts from project.

Answer: Galley proofs have always been required when manuscripts are a requirement of the RFTO.

26 34 D.2.3 Presentations a. For budget estimating purposes, should EPCs budget for report instead of a protocol?

RFP Page Number

Relevant Section Number or Title

Question

For in-person presentations, Tasks D.2.3.1- D.2.3.4, travel origination, time of year, and year of travel will each impact travel costs.

b. How will the firm FFP award for these tasks take in to account these factors over the 5-year course of the

IDIQ?

c. Will the FFP award be EPC-specific (each EPC gets its own FFP Item) or will the FFP award be set across all EPCs?

d. Are these items only for EHC presentations, or do they include USPSTF presentations as well?

Answer: See solicitation amendment on page 35.

The FFP items prices will be the same for all EPCs.

For budgeting purposes, assume meetings will be in Washington DC area and assume a budget that will be appropriate across the different times of the contract period of performance. Items may be considered for any EPC report.

27 34, 35 D.2.3 For budget estimates, what location should we assume for the in person presentations?

Answer: See response to question 26.

28 35 D2.3.5 Webinar

Presentation The RFP notes that “The EPC shall make a presentation via webinar. This task shall also include webinar scripts and time to revise in response to comments from presentation.”

What is the EPC revising? The webinar script or the protocol/report?

Answer: See solicitation amendment on page 35.

29 48 H.6 TASK ORDER

SELECTION

PROCEDURES

AND CRITERIA

Will requests for task orders under EPC VI use the electronic system or do you anticipate paper / CD submissions?

Answer: Requests for task orders under EPC VI will use an electronic proposal system.

30 51 Personnel Security Requirements

EPCs typically do not have access to, or use, DHHS space, equipment or information. Will EPCs be required to adhere to the stipulations in this section, including badge request and electronic fingerprinting?

Answer: No solicitation amendment necessary.

31 83, 85 L.6 General instructions and L.7 Technical Proposal Instructions

Do the requirements for font size (12-point, Tines New Roman, and line spacing (1.5) apply to all parts of the technical proposal, such as the reference list, Appendix 1 (Resumes/CVs), and Appendix 2 (HHS 508 Product Assessment Template)?

Do the requirements for font size (12-point, Tines New Roman, and line spacing (1.5) apply past performance section as well?

Answer: See solicitation amendment on page 83.

The font size and line spacing does not apply to the past performance information or business proposal.

RFP Page Number

Relevant Section Number or Title

Question

32 84 General Instructions

Many computers no longer have CD drives. Can USB flash drives be submitted instead of CD ROM copies?

Answer: See solicitation amendment on page 84.

33 84 L.6 GENERAL

INSTRUCTIONS

Which department uses the CD ROMs?

Answer: No solicitation amendment necessary.

34 85 L.7 Technical

Proposal Instructions

Does the 38-page limit on the technical proposal include references, or can references be submitted as a separate appendix?

Answer: No solicitation amendment necessary. The allowed appendices are clearly stated in the RFP.

35 85 General Instructions

May we assume that NIH biosketch format is acceptable for the CVs, as long as within page limits?

Answer: Please see solicitation amendment in section L.7., page 85.

36 85-86 Section L7.

Technical Proposal Instructions – Appendices, Page Limit Summary

Should references be included in the limit of 38 pages for the main portion of the technical proposal or can the bibliography be in an appendix?

Answer: See response to question 34.

37 85-92, 93-

Section L7.

Technical Proposal Instructions Section L9.

Business Proposal Instructions

Are letters of commitment from proposed subcontractors required for the Technical Proposal and/or the Business Proposal (in an appendix)?

Answer: No.

38 87 Understanding and

Technical Approach

The instructions call for the proposal to “address approaches for scoping, analysis, and data presentation/visualization in the following challenging situations…” including “other major challenges encountered when producing evidence synthesis reports.” Is the latter meant to refer only to other challenges related to scoping, analysis, or data presentation, or is it meant to encompass other challenges related to any aspect of producing an evidence synthesis report? The instructions also say to “provide an example of how the offeror presented information in an innovative way.” Would it be acceptable to present more than one example? It is not clear why nutrition and alternative therapies are lumped together as one of the 8 topic areas that can be addressed in the proposal. Is it necessary to address both nutrition and alternative therapies if we choose to address this topic area in the proposal?

Answer: The proposal should address approaches for scoping, analysis, and data presentation/visualization (not all aspects of producing an evidence synthesis report) in the three named challenging areas and other major challenging area as determined by the

RFP Page Number

Relevant Section Number or Title

Question offeror. See solicitation amendment on page 87 and 101.

39 88 2. Personnel and Management Plan

In the Personnel and Management Plan section, should we limit the number of listed people to key personnel or list everyone who will contribute to the evidence reviews (i.e., should we select a main statistician or list all statisticians, analysts, and research programmers)?

Answer:

See solicitation amendment on page 88.

40 88, 89, 90 Personnel and Management Plan

Disclosure forms, including the AHRQ “Disclosure Form for Conflicts of Interest”, require statement of specific role on project and interests relevant to the specific topic (I.e., forms are completed for a specific task order). Please clarify:

1) What interests should the core team members consider and disclose?

2) What interests should the clinical and methods experts disclose for the broad topic categories in the table (pg 90)?

Answer: See solicitation amendment on pages 88 and 90.

41 89 L.7 Clinical and

Methodological Expertise

Will letters of support from the clinical and methodological experts be a factor in the evaluation of the proposal? If so, can they be included as an appendix?

Answer: Letters of support are not requested or required. See response to question 34.

42 89-91 Section L7.

Technical Proposal Instructions – Clinical and Methodological Expertise

Can other areas of clinical and methodological expertise be added to the table?

Answer: See solicitation amendment on page 91 and 92.

43 89-91 Section L7.

Technical Proposal Instructions – Clinical and Methodological Expertise

Since particular task order topics are unknown at this time, it is difficult to identify individual potential conflicts of interest. Would it be acceptable to describe possible mitigation plans generally in the Technical Proposal narrative, rather than for each area in the table?

Answer: See solicitation amendment on pages 88 and 90.

44 90 Clinical and

Methodological Expertise

What were the criteria for selecting the areas of expertise?

Answer: No solicitation amendment necessary 45 90, 91 Clinical and

Methodological Expertise

Please clarify the type of expertise required or what is meant by “methodological topics areas”. Some of the items listed under this subheading are intervention types. For instance, are EPCs to list experts in nutrition and pharmaceuticals or experts in some aspect of methods of addressing these topics?

Answer: See solicitation amendment on pages 91 and 92.

RFP Page Number

Relevant Section Number or Title

Question

46 92 L.8 PAST

PERFORMANCE

INFORMATION

In the Past Performance Information volume, should both the offeror and the subcontractor/s, be represented in a total of 5 selected projects (i.e.., 1 or 2 projects of the 5 total projects would come from the proposed subcontractor/s, rather than 5 each)?

Answer: Please provide 5 contracts for the prime and 5 contracts for each subcontractor. The information provided for the prime and all subcontractors is limited to 10 pages.

47 Pg 92 L.8 Past Performance

Please define “major subcontractor.”

Answer: Major subcontractors are those performing a significant portion of the work or tasks that are critically important to successful completion of the work.

48 92-93 L.8, L.9 If an offeror intends to include a major subcontractor as part of the proposal, will the subcontractor need to provide all the required elements of the business proposal such as detailed budgets and representations and certifications?

Answer: Detailed budgets and certificate of cost or pricing data (as applicable) are required but not Other Administrative Data (L.9.C).

49 93 L.8 PAST

PERFORMANCE

INFORMATION

We would like to confirm that “e: Contract work” refers to a description of the work performed.

Answer: Yes.

50 94 Cost/Price

Proposal Methodology-4th paragraph

The RFP states that the Government will establish the pricing for all EPC VI contractors. We could not identify anything in FAR Part 31 that allows this action. Please provide the FAR citation that authorizes this pricing methodology?

Answer: No solicitation amendment necessary. See FAR Part 1 and Part 16.

51 94 L.9.A Cost/Price Proposal Methodology-4th paragraph

Requiring contractors to submit a price that has to cover actual costs for the entire 5-year duration of the EPC VI contract without normal escalation creates considerable risk to the contractor, that can only be offset by submitting prices based on Year 5 prices.

GAAP accounting rules do not allow fee earned on one task order to be carried over to cover a loss on another separate task order. The necessary risk mitigation for contractors results in the Government paying a higher price for task orders awarded in the earlier years of the contract. Annual escalation of pricing is a normal accepted method for reducing risk and providing best value.

Would the Government consider establishing a fixed price for each item based on Year 1 pricing that then escalates by a fixed percentage in each subsequent year of the IDIQ?

Answer: AHRQ anticipates and encourages process efficiencies will be learned and developed over the 5-

RFP Page Number

Relevant Section Number or Title

Question year duration that will allow EPC VI contract holders to offset any inflation.

52 94 and Attachment

Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Is it acceptable to include our institution’s approved commercial Small Business Plan? If so, do we also need to complete the Small Business Subcontracting Plan template included in the RFP?

Answer: Yes, commercial Small Business Subcontracting Plans are acceptable. The commercial Small Business Subcontracting Plan must contain all of the information required in the RFP including the additional assurances.

53 96-97 Section L9.

Business Proposal Instructions, C.

Other Administrative Data

Should “Other Administrative Data,” including Representations and Certifications, be submitted for proposed subcontractors?

Answer: See response to question 48.

54 98 L.10 paragraph (g) The RFP states that “the offeror shall document in its proposal the approved FWA from OHRP, related the designated Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewing and overseeing the research.” In which volume should this information be presented: Volume I: Technical Proposal or Volume III: Business Proposal?

Answer: Please see solicitation amendment on page 85 and 86.

55 Attachment 1 Pages 1-

AHRQ Security and Privacy Language for Information and Information Technology Procurements

(PROCUREMENTS

INVOLVING

CLOUD

SERVICES)

As the EPC VI Statement of Work does not include IT/Cloud Services procurement, can you explain the rationale for this attachment?

Answer: Although not a standard, item, under D.3.2, an RFTO may be issued to “Develop and refine tools and templates to improve EPC program efficiency, utility, or rigor”. Tools, such as the SRDR, may include IT/Cloud Services procurement.

56 Attachment

Data Security Attachment 1 includes language that is not typical of past EPC RFPs/IDIQs. To the best of our knowledge this RFP is not for the procurement of cloud services, and thus the associated data security requirements should not be required. In addition, Attachment 1 describes the solicitation requirements for a FIPS 199 moderate environment, that this solicitation involves personally identifiable information, and that SA&A Package Deliverables, such as a System Security Plan, Security Assessment Plan/Report, Independent Assessment, Plan of Actions and Milestones, etc are required).

RFP Page Number

Relevant Section Number or Title

Question

a. If this RFP is not for the procurement of cloud services, can Attachment 1 be removed from the

RFP?

b. If this attachment is applicable, would AHRQ confirm they want contractors to budget for these additional security costs in all of the item pricing?

Answer: Although not a standard, item, under D.3.2, an RFTO may be issued to “Develop and refine tools and templates to improve EPC program efficiency, utility, or rigor”. Tools, such as the SRDR, may include IT/Cloud Services procurement. If such requirements are needed for an individual task order, it will be stated and contractors would submit an appropriate budget at that time.

57 Attachment E, page 3

C.3. Serve as associate editor to ensure consistent quality of EPC program products, including systematic reviews and technology assessments

The text here states “EPCs shall nominate one candidate to be an Associate editor of EPC reports.”

In section M (page 100), however, the instructions note that “the proposal shall be evaluated on

• The appropriate expertise of the proposed associate editor(s)

• The appropriate time availability of proposed associate editor(s)” Does AHRQ permit more than one candidate to be nominated to be an Associate Editor?

Answer: Please see solicitation amendment in section C.3 of Attachment E, page 3.