Q A -compiled-1-25-11.docx

Questions on FA7037-11-R-0002 25 Jan 11 Question 1. Form SF-33 Section B and section 6.1.1.1 lists a manhour estimate of 101,760 hours for the base year and each of the three option years. These numbers will be used for the cost evaluation. Dividing these hours by 1,920 for each FTE results in a head count of 53 FTEs. Section M 4.4 bullet f indicates that the Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide personnel that can satisfy the Contract Security Specifications established in DD Form 254 at time of award. However, Block 13 of the DD-254 states that 45 SCI billets are authorized. Which number is more accurate for labor estimation purposes? Will the Government please clarify the total number hours/personnel anticipated, the security requirements for those personnel, and the anticipated timeline for when personnel will need to be available?

Government Response: The cost will be evaluated based on 101,760 hours and is for cost evaluation purposes only. The DD 254 will be revised based on the number of SCI billets identified in the winning proposal. The security requirements are identified in the DD 254. Personnel meeting the security requirements need to be available immediately upon award.

Question 2. Will the Government make additional SCI billets available to provide program management support?

Government Response: The DD 254 will be revised based on the number of SCI billets identified in the winning proposal.

Question 3. CLINs X001 is established as CPFF with a fee line. CLIN X004 establishes the Fee as Firm Fixed Price (FFP) applicable to CPFF items. Please clarify applicability of CLIN X004.

Government Response: The amendment to the solicitation deletes CLIN X004.

Question 4. CLINs X002 - DATA. This is a CPFF contract – please clarify why this CLIN is FFP and not cost reimbursable? The CLIN Description states that this data is not separately priced.

Government Response: Since the data CLIN is not separately priced items, they are firm fixed priced not cost items. They are not cost reimbursable.

Question 5. CLINs X003 – TRAVEL.

a. Referenced FAR 32.205-46 (a) does not seem to apply. Please clarify applicability.

Government Response: The correct FAR citation is FAR 31.205-46. The CLINS will be changed accordingly.

b. Is it a government’s intent to establish billing rate as Not to Exceed ceiling, or a fixed rate?

Government Response: The Government intends for the billing rate to be a ceiling rate. The CLINs will be reworded to include the following statement: “A billing rate of _____% applies to all orders. Only one rate is to be used. The order rate will be based either upon audited rates in effect at the time of order placement or the ceiling rate identified above, whichever is lower.”

c. Since this is a Cost reimbursable CLIN is there a mechanism to address changes in DCAA approved forward pricing rates that will affect billing rates in Option Years during contract execution?

Government Response: The change in the wording of the CLIN description will allow for changes in option rates.

d. The billing rate is requested to be inclusive of any or all overheads. Please clarify that the billing rate should be inclusive of all indirect rates/normal burdens, per Offerror’s disclosure statement.

Government Response: The contractor should provide information on the billing rate in sufficient detail that it can be verified by DCAA. All areas of the cost proposal should be proposed IAW the contractor’s disclosure statement.

Question 6. CLINs X005 – MATERIAL

a. Is it a government’s intent to establish billing rate as Not to Exceed ceiling, or a fixed rate?

Government Response: The Government intends for the billing rate to be a ceiling rate. The CLINs will be reworded to include the following statement: “A billing rate of _____% applies to all orders. Only one rate is to be used. The order rate will be based either upon audited rates in effect at the time of order placement or the ceiling rate identified above, whichever is lower.”

b. Since this is a Cost reimbursable CLIN is there a mechanism to address changes in DCAA approved forward pricing rates that will affect billing rates in Option Years during contract execution?

Government Response: The change in the wording of the CLIN description will allow for changes in option rates

c. The billing rate is requested to be inclusive of any or all overheads. Please clarify that the billing rate should be inclusive of all indirect rates/normal burdens, per Offerror’s disclosure statement.

Government Response: The contractor should provide information on the billing rate in sufficient detail that it can be verified by DCAA. All areas of the cost proposal should be proposed IAW the contractor’s disclosure statement.

Question 7. Section C, D & H, page 12 Section C, D and H are missing from the RFP. Since the SOW is included as Attachment 1, will that be referenced in Section C? Will the Government add a Section D and H?

Government Response: No, we will not.

Question 8. Section I - Contract Clauses 52.215-11 and 52.215-13 relating to Certified Cost or Pricing Data: The inclusion of these clauses is contradicted by Clause 7.2.4 on p. 68…“7.2.4 Requirement for Cost or Pricing Data. The Government anticipates award based on adequate competition. The contracting officer has determined that certified cost or pricing data is not required for this solicitation; however, information other than cost or pricing data is required to determine realism….” Request removal of these clauses.

Government Response: FAR 15.408 -- Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses states (c) Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data -- Modifications. The contracting officer shall, when contracting by negotiation, insert the clause at 52.215-11, Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data -- Modifications, in solicitations and contracts when it is contemplated that certified cost or pricing data will be required from the contractor or any subcontractor (see 15.403-4) for the pricing of contract modifications, and the clause prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section [FAR 52.215-10 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data] has not been included. 15.408 (e) states Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data – Modifications. The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.215-13, Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data -- Modifications, in solicitations and contracts when the clause prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section is included. Both clauses are required.

Question 9. Section I – Contract Clauses 52.216-18, 52.216-19 and 52.216-22: This does not appear to be an IDIQ type contract. Request removal of these clauses.

Government Response: Yes, it is an IDIQ contract. The clauses will not be removed.

Question 10. Section I, page 24 Clause 52.217-9 includes a requirement for a preliminary notice of intent to extend the term of the contract of 15 days. This is 15 days less than the required written notification to extend the contract. The default period for preliminary notification is 60 days; did the Government intend this period to be 45 days?

Government Response: Yes, the notification will go out 45 days prior to the expiration of the contract.

Question 11 Section I – Contract Clause 252.232-7007 Limitation of Government's Obligation: If the FFP portion of the solicitation is removed, request removal of this clause to correspond with that action.

Government Response: The clause will be deleted.

Question 12. Section L, paragraph 3.7.1 states, “Proposal pages shall be printed in either a double or single sided format in a font size not less than 10 pitch (CPI) in width and 12 points in height, single-spaced.” There is no difference stated for the font or typeface for graphs or tables. We suggest an 8 pt font, with Arial typeface for Graphics and a 10 pt font, open typeface (i.e., Times New Roman) for tables. This would enable graphics and tables to properly and concisely reflect annotations. Will the Government allow smaller fonts in tables and graphics?

Government Response: Yes, a smaller font will be allowed in tables and graphics, but nothing smaller than an 8 pt font.

Question 13. In section L, paragraph 3.1, the Government states that “All documents shall be on white paper with black ink.” To provide clarity in graphics, will the Government allow color graphics in the proposal?

Government Response: Yes, the Government will allow color graphics, however, the Government’s copiers only copy in black and white. Some detail may be lost if the Government needs to make additional copies.

Question 14. Section L, paragraph 5.2.3, page 63 This paragraph requires offerors to “specify and discuss in the Mission Capability Subfactors the numbers, types, qualifications, duties and security clearance level for all proposed key personnel”. Will the Government please specify key personnel positions?

Government Response: Key Personnel Positions are identified as follows:

Personnel (Yes/No)

Question 15. RFP Section Section L.5.3 states that “Within the Mission Capability Factor, Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 2 are of equal importance and are of more importance than Subfactor 3.” Section M-901 1.0.b.(2) states, “Within the Mission Capability Factor, Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 2 are of equal importance and are of more importance than Subfactor 3.” However, Section M-901 para 4.4 states that Mission Capability Subfactor 3, Management Support “is of equal importance to Subfactors 1 and 2 in Mission Capability.” Please clarify the relative importance of the three subfactors.

Government Response: The parenthetical remark that (This subfactor is of equal importance to Subfactors 1 and 2 in Mission Capability” was deleted from Section M-901 para 4.4.

Question 16. Section L paragraph 5.5.3, page 65 The requirement reads, “Provide a Staffing Plan that addresses your acquisition and retention methods for skilled personnel, including retention during times of limited taskings.” Please quantify the anticipated ‘times of limited taskings’ in contrast to fully billable periods, in terms of numbers of FTEs, percentage of utilization, and duration, i.e. 10% of FTEs utilized at 50% for 2 weeks during each quarter.

Government Response: An example of time for limited tasking can be 20% of FTEs utilized at 50% for 2 weeks each quarter. This is for proposal preparation purposes only. Actual numbers may vary.

Question 17. Section L, paragraph 5.5.5, page 65 This paragraph requires a Transition Plan in the proposal submission. We believe a Transition Plan is imperative to limit the risk to mission performance. Will the Government please specify the transition period for transitioning operations from the incumbent contractor to a new contractor? We strongly recommend a minimum of two weeks for the transition period.

Government Response: There will not be a phase in period between the current contractor and the awardee. The transition plan, in this case, must address that period of time from contract award until the requirement is fully staffed.

Question 18. Reference Section L, 7.0 – Is it correct that Volume IV will consist of pricing spreadsheets and a completed copy of Section B (even though Section B will also be included in Volume V)? Government Response: Section B need only be included in Volume 5, Model contract.

Question 19. Reference Section L, 7.2.1 – Instructions state that pricing detail shall be provided for “critical subcontractor rates.” Please define “critical”.

Government Response: If subcontractors will be performing a portion of the work under this contract on more than an occasional basis, they are considered critical. Rates and pricing data in support of those rates must be furnished.

Question 20. Reference Section L, 7.2.2 – Instructions state that subcontractor rate details must be provided. Is it correct that this detail is only required for critical subcontractors? Also, may subcontractor rate details be provided in a sealed package.

Government Response: The cost models include a summary table of rates. If the subcontractor, with the prime contractor’s concurrence, desires, the summary table of rates could be submitted to the prime along with a sealed copy of the subcontractor’s complete cost models and any supporting documentation (including the OH/G&A/MH rates) which would be submitted with the prime contractor’s proposal to the Government.

Question 21. Section L, para 7.2.2 states, “A cost model has been provided to facilitate the evaluation of offers.” There was no cost model included in the attachments. Will there be one?

Government Response: Yes, one is provided with the response to the questions.

Question 22. Section L, para 6.4 states, “The offeror shall submit a consent letter …” Is it the Government’s intention for the offer to include the consent letters and Client Authorization Letters in Vol III, Past Performance, or submit separately? If included in Vol III, will the letters be counted as part of the page count (10)?

Government Response: The consent letters are included in the page count for the Past Performance volume. A client authorization letter accompanies the questionnaire when sent to commercial customers; the client authorization letters do not need to be submitted with the proposal.

Question 23. RFP Section L.6.4, Past and Present Performance Questionnaire states “To be of benefit, the customer past performance information must be received not later than the due date for proposals.” RFP Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire Section 4 lists a due date of “7 Jan 11” for government personnel to fax or email their completed questionnaires to the Contracting Officer. Please advise the due date for which all completed Past and Present Performance Questionnaires must be submitted to the Government.

Government Response: The Government desires the questionnaires as soon as possible but will review any questionnaires received no later than the due date for proposals.

Question 24. The current Past Performance questionnaire is in PDF format. Will the Government provide a MS Word version of the questionnaire?

Government Response: Yes, a word version was uploaded to Fed BizOps with these responses.

Question 25. The Past Performance questionnaire (Attachment 5) paragraph 2, bullet one specifically asks for support the 92 IOS. Is it the Government’s intention to exclude past performance performed for anyone other than the 92 IOS?

Government Response: Paragraph 2 merely details the proposed work scope of this effort for the 92 IOS. Any recent, relevant past performance references will be considered.

Question 26. Clause 8.3 Other Information Required: May a signed transmittal letter be provided as an attachment to Volume V - Model Contract/Representations and Certifications addressing the requirements of 8.3?

Government Response: Yes

Question 27. In section 5.0 of section M, paragraph 2, the Government states that “The Government may consider as relevant effort performed for agencies of federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers.” Yet the relevancy requirements for subfactors 2 and 3 require “Conducted assessments on AF, DoD and commercial networks,” and “Has DoD approved documented security assessment processes.” These relevancy requirements seem to be in conflict and exclude every contract except contracts with the 92 IOS. To avoid the perception of incumbent bias, will the Government consider revising the relevancy requirements to allow for similar efforts in support of all federal, state or local governments or commercial customers?

Government Response: Please reread the relevancy criteria. They delineate degrees of relevancy. For Subfactor 2 Very Relevant past performance references are those that involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The offeror’s past performance effort cites previous work where the offeror demonstrated the ability to plan, execute and report cyber security assessments to include all of the following: (a) Conducted network security assessments on AF, DoD and commercial networks; (b) Utilized GOTS, COTS, and Open Source security assessment tools; (c) Performed penetration tests of AF, DoD and commercial networks; (d) Assessed the security posture of 90-100% of the technologies identified in Table 1 of the SOW. For Subfactor 2 Relevant past performance references are those that involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The offeror’s past performance effort cites previous work where the offeror demonstrated the ability to plan, execute and report cyber security assessments to include some of the following: (a) Conducted network security assessments on AF, DoD and commercial networks; (b) Utilized GOTS, COTS, and Open Source security assessment tools; (c) Performed penetration tests of AF, DoD and commercial networks; (d) Assessed the security posture of 90-100% of the technologies identified in Table 1 of the SOW.

For Subfactor 3 Very Relevant past performance references are those that include essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The offeror’s past performance effort cites previous work where the offeror demonstrated the ability to leverage corporate resources to support assessments and includes all of the following: (a) Have a corporate infrastructure available within 24 hrs. of request; (b) Has implemented DoD approved documented security assessment processes. For Subfactor 3 Relevant past performance references are those that involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The offeror’s past performance effort cites previous work where the offeror demonstrated the ability to leverage corporate resources to support assessments and includes some of the following: (a) Have a corporate infrastructure available within 24 hrs. of request; (b) Has implemented DoD approved documented security assessment processes.

The Government may consider efforts performed for federal, state or local governments but their degree of relevance cannot be determined in advance. The complexity of a federal agency, state or local network security assessment may not be similar to that performed on an AF or DOD network as the standards are different.

Question 28. Section 5.0, Past Performance Factor, of Section M lists two evaluation criteria for Mission Capability Subfactor 3, Management Support Relevancy Rating. The second evaluation criterion for an offeror’s past performance example is to show that the offeror “Has DoD approved documented security assessment processes. What does this phrase refer to? Does this refer to a DoD certification for “security assessment processes”? If so, what DoD certification is intended?

Government Response: This should be corrected to read "(b) Has IMPLEMENTED DoD approved documented security assessment processes."

Question 29. In section 5.0 of section M, paragraph three, fourth sentence, the Government states “In reviewing past performance, greater importance will be given to actual experience (operational support), testing, and design experience in electromagnetic propagation research and analysis.” This sentence seems unrelated to the 92 IOS solicitation.

Government Response: You are correct. This language was from an old template and will be changed to “In reviewing past performance, greater importance will be given to actual experience in the operational support, execution, and development of Information Assurance and Security Assessment programs”.

Question 30. In section 6.1 of section M, the Government states that “The Government will determine the Probable Cost (PC) based on the basic and one subsequent year.” This seems to be in conflict with section 6.2 which states that the offeror’s probably cost shall be as follows: “All CLIN X001 Labor cost elements will be totaled for basic period of performance and the options.” Will the Government clarify if probable cost will be calculated using all option years or a single option year? Also, if the Government is only going to use a single option year, which option year will be used?

Government Response: It is the Government’s intent to determine the evaluated cost using all of the option years. M- 6.1 will be revised as follows: 6.1 Price/Cost Evaluation. The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate and clearly describe an effective and efficient cost approach for accomplishing the stated requirements. Unrealistically low prices or cost estimates may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition. The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable and realistic. The Government will determine an Evaluated Cost (EC) based on the basic and all option years. The offeror's proposed estimated costs shall not be controlling for source selection purposes. The method of calculating of the offeror's EC shall be as follows:.

Question 31. In section 6.1.1.1, the Government defines the labor categories and hours to be used for evaluation purposes. How will the Government evaluate additional labor categories and costs such as program management hours and computer charges?

Government Response: Reference Section L, paragraph 7.2.1. In the case of a labor classification that is merely a change in terminology (for example: Educator vs. Training Specialist) the hours associated with the existing category (in this case 5.26%) would transfer from Training Specialist category to the new Educator category. In contrast, an additional labor category that would supplement existing labor categories would require an explanation of how it would fit in. A simplistic example: the addition of a Senior Network Engineer would presumably reduce hours in the Network Engineer (Intermediate) and perhaps the Subject Matter Expert positions; it would be up to the offeror to explain both why the additional category is required and the anticipated proportion of usage vis-à-vis the other categories. The cost model provided includes a column for the inclusion of ODCs.

Question 32. In section 6.1.1 of section M, the Government states that “The remaining thirty percent (30.0%) will be priced at the average subcontractor or team member rates for the labor categories.” Will the Government create an average subcontractor rate for each labor category based on each team mate’s rate for that labor category, or will Government use an average of all labor categories and apply that rate to each labor category?

Government Response: The Government will average the rates by apportioning 30% of the labor hours among the team members with rates proposed in each category. If no subcontract rates are proposed in any category, 100% of the prime contractor’s rate will be used to calculate the evaluated cost.

The following examples illustrate how this evaluation will work. All rates used are hypothetical:

Total hours for CLIN 0001: 18,240

Contractor A proposes 5 team members (itself and 4 team members) with the following CPFF rates:

Member 1 Rate Team Member 2 Rate Team Member 3 Rate Team Member 4 Rate

Prime Hours 2,687.7

Team Hours 1,151.8

Calculated Prime Cost

$134,383.20

Hours 287.9

Calculated Team Cost

$17,277.84

Hours

$20,157.48

Hours

$11,518.53

Hours

$10,078.74

Note: In the above calculation, 21.05% of the total contract hours (18,240) are apportioned to the Network Engineer (Intermediate) classification. The resultant 3,839.5 hours are subdivided 70% to the Prime Contractor (2,687.7 hours) and 30% to Team Members (1,151.8 hours). The Team hours are split evenly between each of the four-team members.

Category

Member 1 Rate Team Member 2 Rate

$40

Hours 2,687.7

Team Hours 1,151.8

Calculated Prime Cost

$134,383.20

Hours 575.9

$34,555.68

Hours

$0

Hours 575.9

$23,037.12

Hours

$0

Note: In the above calculation, 21.05% of the total contract hours (18,240) are apportioned to the Computer Security Systems Specialist (Intermediate) classification. The resultant 3,839.5 hours are subdivided 70% to the Prime Contractor (2,687.7 hours) and 30% to Team Members (1,151.8 hours). The Team hours are split evenly between each of the two-team members who bid on this classification.

Question 33. How will the Government assess costs if teammates do not bid all labor categories? For example, if not all team members bid a given labor category, then it is our assumption that only those team members who do bid in that category will be averaged and priced at 30% of the overall rate? Or, if no teammates bid in a given labor category, then we assume that the Prime contractor weighting of that rate will be 100%. Are these assumptions correct?

Government Response: See Above.

Question 34. Section M, paragraph 6.1.1.1, page 83 The RFP provides for a set of labor categories for which offerors need to provide rates. We suggest that the Government provide a description of the labor categories with respect to number of years of experience and educational requirements. Additionally, please clarify the type of Subject Matter Experts desired, i.e., database administrators, web developers, etc.

Government Response: SOW paragraph 3.0 requirements describes the SMEs and the mandatory Certification requirements. Part of the proposal should include the bidder’s proposed certifications based on the technology areas. The DoD 8570 certifications should be as follows:

Required Certifications

Question 35. SOW, paragraph 3.0 Requirements and Request For Proposal, page 4 Section M, paragraph 6.1.1.1, page 83 SOW paragraph 3.0 states “The contractor shall maintain a staff of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to perform all tasks listed in this SOW”. Would the Government please specify the requirement for non-SMEs indicated in Section M, paragraph 6.1.1.1? This appears inconsistent given the “weight” of the estimated breakdown in this section where the SMEs account for only 26.32% of the total hours. Please clarify.

Government Response: The table in Section M, 6.1.1.1 is corrected to read “Senior Engineer” instead of “Subject Matter Expert. “ The classifications in Section M, 6.1.1.1 are more for labor categories. A SME is defined in SOW paragraph 3.0 Requirements. Anyone in any of the classifications can be a SME in a technology area.

Question 36. SOW Paragraph 3.0: Requirements reads " The contractor shall provide and maintain personnel certified in accordance with 92 IOS required certifications under DoD Directive 8570.1 entitled "Information Assurance Training, Certification, and Workforce Management"." and that " In accordance with DoD 8570.1M, newly assigned personnel shall have completed their certification requirements prior to being assigned to the contract." What are the 92 IOS required certifications by SOW area or for each of the Classifications of labor noted in RFP Section M-901 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, Paragraph 6.1.1.1.

Government Response: The certifications required in SOW 3.0 Requirements must be met. The DoD 8570 certifications should be as follows:

Required Certifications

Question 37. Will the Government provide an anticipated schedule of assessments, a list of on-going assessments, and a list of where and when personnel will be required to be during the first two months of the contract to ensure our transition plan accommodates these schedules?

Government Response: The Transition Plan referenced in Sec L & Sec M is requesting that the bidders processes and approaches be discussed. The anticipated schedule of assessments will be provided upon contract award. Sec M 4.4. e will be revised to state: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Transition Plan, including the beginning and the end of the period of performance. This plan shall include the process to be used for assuring the following at the beginning of the contract: (1) The approach for supporting existing taskings, projects, and assessments; (2) Approach to meeting requirements for immediate support for unplanned missions, and surge capabilities. This plan shall include the process to be used for assuring the following at the end of the Period of Performance: (1) all Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) is returned; (2) the method of packaging and delivering all CDRLs; and (3) the method for transitioning operations to a new contractor. Sec L 5.5.5 will be revised to state: Provide a Transition plan to ensure seamless operations at the beginning and the end of the period of performance. This plan shall include the process to be used for assuring the following at the beginning of the contract: (1) The approach for supporting existing taskings, projects, and assessments; (2) Approach to meeting requirements for immediate support for unplanned missions, and surge capabilities. This plan shall include the process to be used for assuring the following at the end of the Period of Performance: (1) all Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) is returned; (2) the method of packaging and delivering all CDRLs; and (3) the method for transitioning operations to a new contractor.

Question 38: Will the Government provide a transition period with the existing contractor to facilitate transition, ensure travel arrangements can be made, and ensure that assessment activities are not disrupted.

Government Response: No transition or phase in period with the existing contractor is anticipated.

Question 39: SOW, paragraph 3.1.4, page 7 This paragraph reads “contractor shall support the full spectrum of assessment missions and types … as described but not limited to in Section 1.1 background”. Will the contractor be expected to perform assessments other than defense assessments, intrusion assessments, and vulnerability assessments?

Government Response: No. The assessment types will fall under the 3 categories, but the terminology might change.

Question 40: SOW, paragraphs 3.1.4.1.2, page 8; 3.1.4.2.3, page 8; 3.1.4.3.2 page 9; 3.2.4.1.2, page 16; 3.2.4.2.3, page 16; 3.2.4.3.2, page 17 With respect to any Government Off The Shelf tools (GOTS) currently within the 92nd IOS inventory, please identify which tools may be subject to ITAR controlled restrictions.

Government Response: ITAR is not a factor to be considered in respect to the 92 IOS tools. ITAR is a factor for the offeror to consider, especially when traveling OCONUS.

Question 41: Attachment 6 of the solicitation provides a mapping of L & M to the SOW/PWS, but the SOW paragraph numbers do not match the current SOW, and all SOW paragraphs are not covered. For example, Attachment 6 shows “Tool and Technology Evaluation” and references SOW 3.1.4.1.3, but the actual SOW paragraph that matches the referenced text is paragraph 3.1.4.1.2. As an additional example, SOW section 3.1.3 “Security Support” is not mapped to any L or M requirement. Please clarify or update Attachment 6.

Government Response: The Matrix was updated