23R0020 - Attachment 11 - Section M.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Basis for Award

SECTION M

Remediation and Release of McClellan AIR Force Base (AFB) Old Magpie

Creek Channel

I. Basis for Contract Award

Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price, with past performance considered significantly more important than cost/price. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection (SS) decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against the solicitation (described below). While the

Government Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the SS process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

A. General

Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR

15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the

Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision

(FPR) will be considered in making the SS decision. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. For the purposes of making the award decision without discussions, all initial proposals that are rated technically Unacceptable on any factor or sub-factor will be un-awardable. Proposals that are rated Unacceptable on any factor or sub-factor, after discussions, will be un-awardable. If discussions are required, the

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will hold discussions with all Offerors in the competitive range and FPRs will be requested. If, after discussions have begun, the PCO determines that an

Offeror's proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, then that proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of exclusion from the competitive range will be provided to unsuccessful Offerors.

Evaluation Factors for Award: The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offerors whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1 – Technical –

Subfactor One: Technical Approach (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Subfactor Two: Managerial Approach (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Factor 2 – Past Performance – (Trade-off)

Factor 3 – Cost/Price

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors: For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The order of importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated to be on basis that is significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price).

Evaluation Methodology: The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed above. Price will be evaluated as described below in this document. For the award decision, the SSA will assess the Past Performance ratings and Price for all technically acceptable offerors to make an integrated assessment of which offeror provides the overall best value.

Determination of Responsibility: Even though the assessment of Past Performance as a specific evaluation factor is separate and distinct from the Determination of Responsibility required by FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, information obtained as part of the proposal evaluation process will be used to support the Determination of Responsibility for the successful Offeror(s). If the

Contracting Officer determines a small business to be non-responsible, the Contracting Officer will refer the matter to the Small Business Administration which will decide whether to issue a Certificate of

Competency (see FAR 9.104-3 and FAR 19.6).

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Remediation and Release of

McClellan AIR Force Base Old Magpie Creek Channel requirement.

2 Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation the “correction potential” of any deficiency. Judgement such as “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the

Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

3. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and administrative requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1 General:

Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the

Statement of Work (SOW) and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Subfactor One: Technical Approach

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal includes a sound approach that is technically appropriate based on current site conditions, is consistent with the Government’s objectives, and provides an explanation in sufficient detail to support Government evaluation of how the objectives and requirements in the SOW and other applicable agreements will be met or exceeded while ensuring protection of human and ecological health, to include maintaining regulatory compliance.

At a minimum, the Offeror’s proposal shall:

• Adequately demonstrates why the selected performance objective (including the minimum performance objective if that is what is proposed) is an optimal solution for the Government.

• Demonstrates an understanding of site conditions.

• Adequately demonstrates project risks and proposed solutions to eliminate, mitigate, or respond to those risks.

• Adequately demonstrates the process of remediating and obtaining unrestricted release of sites with low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) contamination in subsurface soils.

• Includes a sound approach for work unit phasing and coordination with the Air Force, McClellan

Business Park (MBP), and MBP’s tenants.

• Adequately demonstrates the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) and site close-out process.

• Adequately demonstrates Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual

(MARSSIM);

• Adequately demonstrate the ability to implement Federal and State regulations for radiation health and safety, including maintaining worker and public exposures below regulatory limits and as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA)

• The Offeror shall submit a sound approach that is efficient and maximizes the likelihood of meeting the performance objectives during the POP without expending large sums for contingencies, including 1) defensible strategies and 2) a business case analysis to support the selected performance objective (i.e., the rationale for why it is not technically feasible or not cost effective within the

POP).

• Contractor’s team has (1) a radioactive materials license from the State of California that allows remediation and transportation LLRW or (2) has such a license from the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission or another state and can obtain a reciprocity agreement from the State of California in time to support field work for this project.

(b) The Offeror’s proposal shall also include a sound and realistic activity-based Milestone Payment

Schedule (MPS) (without price information), that demonstrates correlation with the IMS and Technical

Approach and considered integral and necessary to the achievement of the performance objective.

Subfactor Two: Management Approach

(a) This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal includes a comprehensive Management Plan and

Key Personnel Qualifications. The Project Management Plan shall include a qualified field and management team, including key personnel with relevant experience to efficiently and effectively achieve the proposed performance objectives and milestones as scheduled, manage the requirements, and ensure quality services and deliverables.

At a minimum, the Offeror’s Management Plan shall include:

• Clear identification of roles and responsibilities for key personnel, subcontractors; and other relevant team members and provide an organizational chart. Key personnel shall include Program

Manager, Program Chemist; Program QA/QC, Program Health and Safety Manager, Superintendent for Construction.

• A demonstration of an efficient approach for managing multiple and concurrent events. Provide a

Process Map showing critical decision points and individuals responsible for managing multiple and concurrent events.

• A demonstration that the team has relevant experience with the Radiological technologies proposed.

• A demonstration of procedures/processes to ensure high-quality services and submission of deliverables. At a minimum, the procedures/processes shall include change management, team integration/coordination, minimize data errors, review process (project reviewing, editing for content); high-level review process to vet decisions on projects (schedule, cost, technical aspects)

• A demonstration of effective communication between stakeholders (Air Force, Contractor, Regulators and Community). Proposal shall include a communication hierarchy for dealing with all stakeholders.

• A demonstration of efficient and effective management of team members and subcontractors. and the role each team member and subcontractor will fulfill.

At a minimum, the Offeror’s Key Personnel Qualifications shall include:

• A Health Physicist – meeting the required Key Personnel Qualifications and Parameters

(Attachment 3) that has relevant experience and ability to provide a radiation protection plan for the personnel and the environment.

• A Project Manager - meeting the required Key Personnel Qualifications and Parameters

(Attachment 3) that has relevant experience and ability to provide effective and efficient management and implementation as outlined in the SOW.

• A Chemist - meeting the required Key Personnel Qualifications and Parameters (Attachment 3) that has relevant experience and ability to provide effective interpretation of data and data reviews and quality checks as outlined in the SOW.

• A Program QA/QC - meeting the required Key Personnel Qualifications and Parameters

(Attachment 3) that has relevant experience and ability in development, maintenance, and implementation of an environmental restoration program.

• A Program Health and Safety Manager - meeting the required Key Personnel Qualifications and

Parameters (Attachment 3) that has relevant experience and ability in development, maintenance, and implementation of the health and safety systems for the contractor, including oversight, review, reporting, training, and control of employee health and safety processes.

• Superintendent for Construction – meeting the required Key Personnel Qualifications and

Parameters (Attachment 3) that has relevant experience and ability in construction site management and coordination for environmental efforts.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor 2

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered.

For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the date of release of the solicitation. The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

For present or ongoing efforts, the Offeror must have been performing the effort for at least twelve.

(12) months from the date of issuance of the solicitation.

Each Offeror is requested to submit a maximum of five (5) recent (within the last 5 years) stand-alone C-type contracts or Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) task orders. Of these five contracts/task orders, a minimum of two (2) must have been performed by the

Prime Offeror. Joint Venture Partners constitute Prime Offerors for purposes of this section.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance

Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s

Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System

(FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The

Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as

Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

4. Recency Assessment: Offerors shall provide recent past performance information (PPI). To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. For present or ongoing efforts, the Offeror must have been performing the effort for at least twelve (12) months from the date of issuance of the solicitation. PPI that does not meet the criteria required by the recency assessment will not be evaluated.

5. Relevancy Definitions: PPI not determined recent will not be evaluated for relevancy. The

Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent PPI obtained to determine how closely the effort performed under those projects relate to this acquisition. The Past Performance

Questionnaires (PPQs) and additional information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevance of past performance. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

*Refer to Attachment M-1 OMCC Relevancy Matrix for more detailed relevancy rating criteria

6. Performance Quality Assessment.

(a) The Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all

Offerors based on (1) the references provided by the Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources (CPARS, etc.). IAW FAR 42.1503 (g), the CO shall use the past performance information in CPARS that is within five years of the completion of performance of the evaluated contract or order, and information contained in the Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), e.g., terminations for default or cause. The Government will only consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts.

For each recent and relevant PPI reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all PPI available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings.

(b) Adverse is defined as PPI that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse PPI to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. For adverse PPI identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements.

Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

(c) The Government will consider present/past performance information in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis. The Government will use the quality levels included on the Past Performance Questionnaire when assessing recent, relevant efforts.

TABLE 2 – QUALITY ASSESSMENT RATINGS

Quality Assessment

Rating

Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many.

Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG) During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M) During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U) During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered.

Corrective actions were either ineffective or non- existent. Extensive

Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N) Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

7. Performance Confidence Assessment.

(a) The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the

Government has in the Offeror’s ability to provide the Remediation and Release of

McClellan Air Force Base Old Magpie Creek Channel that meets the requirements of the

SOW, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial

Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No

Confidence as defined in the table below. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an Offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. Clearly demonstrating management actions employed in overcoming problems allow the Offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support an Offeror has overcome past problems.

(b) Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the Offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Neutral Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Performance Confidence will be evaluated in accordance with the DoD prescribed ratings provided in the table below.

Table 3 Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the

Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The

Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

E. Volume IV, Price/Cost Factor 3

(1) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s total evaluated price (TEP) for completeness, reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing on individual Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLIN) or Sub-CLINs. The TEP consists of all the Offeror's proposed sub-CLINs, regardless of year in which they may be exercised. A proposal is complete when all price data, as outlined in the RFP has been submitted in the proper format (provided). A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

(2) The Government will evaluate whether Contractor has proposed in accordance with the

Contract Line Item (CLIN)/Sub-CLIN structure. The offeror shall not “stretch” by including zero-dollar Sub-CLINs. This may constitute unbalanced pricing and be determined to present an unacceptable risk to the AF.

(3) The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), in order to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

(a) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price (see 15.403-1(c)(1)).

(b) Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items. This method may be used for commercial items including those “of a type” or requiring minor modifications.

(i) The prior price must be a valid basis for comparison. If there has been a significant time lapse between the last acquisition and the present one, if the terms and conditions of the acquisition are significantly different, or if the reasonableness of the prior price is uncertain, then the prior price may not be a valid basis for comparison.

(ii) The prior price must be adjusted to account for materially differing terms and conditions, quantities and market and economic factors. For similar items, the contracting officer must also adjust the prior price to account for material differences between the similar item and the item being procured.

(iii) Expert technical advice should be obtained when analyzing similar items, or commercial items that are “of a type” or requiring minor modifications, to ascertain the magnitude of changes required and to assist in pricing the required changes.

(iv) Per DFARS Case 2020-D008 and section 803 of the FY 2020 National Defense

Authorization Act, historical prices paid by the Government cannot properly comprise the only factor when determining prices fair and reasonable. If additional information is required to determine proposed prices fair and reasonable, contractors are required to make a good faith effort to comply with the

Government’s reasonable requests to furnish data other than certified cost or pricing data.

(c) Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry.

(d) Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements.

(e) Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

(f) Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

(g) Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at 2.101) provided by the Offeror.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars219.htm#b15404 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P348_59683 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/02.htm#P10_631

The first two techniques at 15.404-1(b)(2) are the preferred techniques. However, if the

Contracting Officer determines that information on competitive proposed prices or previous contract prices is not available or is insufficient to determine that the price is fair and reasonable, the Contracting Officer may use any of the remaining techniques as appropriate to the circumstances applicable to the acquisition.

(4) The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in

FAR 15.404-1(g).

(a) Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line-items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The greatest risks associated with unbalanced pricing occur when --

(i) Startup work, mobilization, first articles, or first article testing are separate line-items;

(ii) Base quantities and option quantities are separate line items; or

(iii) The evaluated price is the aggregate of estimated quantities to be ordered under separate line items of an indefinite-delivery contract.

(b) All offers with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If cost or price analysis techniques indicate that an offer is unbalanced, the contracting officer shall --

(i) Consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the competitive range and in making the source selection decision; and

(ii) Consider whether award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high prices for contract performance.

(c) An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Rounding: Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation. The pricing provides for rounding and format to two (2) decimal places. If any pricing proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and

TEP.

5.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

The Contract Documentation volume will be reviewed for completeness. The Offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract and Solicitation, Sections A through L, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required under the Contract

Documentation volume. An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range and/or removed from further evaluation.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P432_79270