Attachment_8_-_Question_Draft RFP_POSTED 5Dec19.pdf

Attachment_8_-_Question_Draft RFP_26Nov19 PART2 Questions and Issues Tracker

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Document Section and/or Page # Question

These will be shared with all vendors, do NOT include any company identifying information.

Gov Response

RFP L-3.2 Will there be classified documents that require safeguarding as a part of the RFP process or proposal submission?

It is not anticipated that classified documents will be part of the IDIQ solicitation but it is anticipated that there will be task orders that will include a classified PWS and other documents that will need to be safeguarded during contract performance.

RFP L-3.2

Please clarify the "safeguarding capability" requirement. Most SDVOSBs cannot justify or obtain classified safeguarding authorization without an awarded Prime contract with a safeguarding requirement. All of our company's current contracts/subcontracts employ individuals against classified requirements up to the TS/SCI level, but they do not require a safeguarding capability or authorization. As a result, none of our DD-254s reflect this requirement. Per DSS directive, without a DD-254 from a current contract stating a safeguarding requirement, DSS will not issue safeguarding authorization. Additionally, DSS does not consider draft DD-254s issued in an

RFP to be sufficient for safeguarding authorization. Is maintaining an FCL, a safe, and processes ready for DSS inspection upon award and issuance of the actual DD-

254 sufficient, or does the government intend to require DSS "approved" safeguarding as a requirement for proposal submission?

The prime offeror will be required to have an active TS FCL with Secret Safeguarding at the time of proposal submission.

RFP L-3.2

If safeguarding authorization is a requirement for proposal submission, it will severely limit SDVSOB eligibility and competitiveness. The safeguarding requirement presents a potentially unfair advantage to those few companies who do have safeguarding authorization through established DD-254s. If the safeguarding capability/authorization remains a requirement, can a SDVOSB Prime with a TS FCL, but without safeguarding capability, designate a business team member with approved safeguarding to receive any classified SOWs or other documents related to the RFP prior to execution?

The prime offeror will be required to have an active TS FCL with Secret Safeguarding at the time of proposal submission.

RFP Table L.3, page 38

Regarding the "Performance Locations and Geographical Requirements" criteria from the Past Performance Relevancy Criteria Baseline (Table L.3), the Government only provides credit for CONUS performance locations. Considering M-SOFS is forecast to include OCONUS locations, and famliarity with travel regulations such as SPOT is a requirement of the contract, we recommend assigning additional weight to OCONUS locations of performance. For example, each OCONUS location could be assigned the same weight as two CONUS locations.

The Government agrees and will update L.3 to give credit for OCONUS locations.

RFP Table L.3, page 38

Regarding the "Performance Locations and Geographical Requirements" criteria from the Past Performance Relevancy Criteria Baseline (Table L.3), the Government only provides credit for CONUS performance locations. Considering the M-SOFS place of performance is forecast to include OCONUS locations, can the Government broaden this criteria from Table L.3 to include OCONUS locations of performance? For example, we recommend rephrasing "CONUS locations" to "CONUS/OCONUS locations".

The Government agrees and will update L.3 to give credit for OCONUS locations.

Attachment 1 - PWS Section 6.1, page 2

Regarding the required skills/qualifications of the IDIQ PM, the Government makes reference to a PMP certification but references a Program Management Professional certification. A Program Management Professional certification is abbreviated as PgMP and is significantly harder to obtain than a Project Management Professional

(PMP) certification. Can the Government clarify the discrepancy - specifically do they require a PMP or a PgMP of the IDIQ PM?

The Government only requires a Project Management Profession (PMP) certification and will update the PWS.

RFP Section L

For similar requirements, we often see a Government requirement surrounding financial capacity which requires offeror's to demonstrate access to a line of credit required to perform this type of work. Given the fact that this is a small business set-aside under $16.5M and that small businesses of this size are often resource constrained, we strongly recommend requiring offerors to prove their financial capacity to perform this work. Our recommendation is to require offeror's to provide proof of access to a line of credit worth at least $2.5M.

The Government will take that into consideration prior to release of the final RFP.

Attachment 4 - FCL

Information Sheet N/A

Per Attachment 4, there are places for bidders to enter the FCL information of potential subcontractors. Do the M-SOFS prime FCL requirements extend to our subcontractors? For example, are subcontractors expected to have a TS/FCL and SECRET safeguarding capability at time of proposal submission?

Only the Prime is required to have the active TS FCL with Secret safeguarding at the time of proposal submission.

Attachment 4 - FCL

Information Sheet N/A

Per Attachment 4, there are places for bidders to enter the FCL information of potential subcontractors. There are places to enter the FCL information for three potential subcontractors. Does this mean Prime offerors are limited to having only three subcontractors on their team?

The Government is not limiting the number of subcontractors a prime can have on their team.

RFP Security Other SOCOM contracts allow SECRET safeguarding to be met across team. In this acquisition is it likely to need safeguarding near Virginia Beach and San Diego, rather than some office elsewhere? Would a better requirement be on the team and location relevant?

The Government requires the prime to have Secret safeguarding. The location of the safeguarding is not specified nor necessarily required near Virginia Beach and/or San Diego.

RFP Security Will the Government allow a Prime to use a sub's safeguarding status? The Government requires the prime to have Secret safeguarding.

DD254 N/A

The DD254 doesn’t support SCI, yet TO2 requires all source analysts with a CI Poly. It is likely with a CI polu that one either has or needs SCI. Should the DD254 be revised.

Individual TO's will have DD254's as necessary. A specific TO level DD254 will be provided for TO2. However, the

Government is also looking at the base IDIQ DD254 to see if it needs to change.

RFP Section L Past Performance The Draft RFP indicates that for a team member's past performance to be evaluated the must perform 25% on the contract. In view of the breadth of the IDIQ requirements would the Government consider allowing 20% participation which is common in DoD acquisitions?

Yes, the Government will consider 20% and has revised Section L accordingly.

RFP Section L Past Performance Does each contract used need to be relevant to most or all the requirements or is it the body of contracts cited that need to meet most or all the requirements.

Each submission provided by the offeror will be evaluated for recency. If the submission is recent, it will be evaluated for relevancy. The submission could be a Task Order or a Contract itself. If a Task Order is submitted, it will be considered an

IDIQ.

RFP Section L Past Performance Does Past Performance have a minimum period to count such as a 1-year, or do recent awarded contract count?

The Government is not stipulating a minimum period to count such as performance in the previous 1-year. However, recently awarded contracts, such as an IDIQ, without any won task orders and/or known quality assessment would not be as favorably reviewed in determining the overall confidence assessment.

RFP Section L Past Performance The annual corporate size cap is $16.5M, yet to be very relevant a contract needs to be >$10M or more than 50% of revenues on a single contract. The prime could not submit 2 contracts very relevant for revenues. Should the revenue standards be more similar to USSOCOM SOF Core Services?

The Government believes with a receny period of 5 years, that the Small Business Size standard of $16.5M does not limit the number of prime submissions.

RFP Security Does a JV need a Top Secret FCL or does both parties having it count as acceptable?

Pursuant to the NISPOM, DSS does not permit a contractor to have access to classified information until a facility clearance has been granted. The NISPOM does not contain an exception for unpopulated joint ventures even in instances where all of the members possess facility clearances. As such, any prime proposing as a Joint Venture, unpopulated or not, must have the required facility clearance and safeguarding capability at time of proposal submission.

Attachment 1A

4.2.3.4 and 4.2.3.5 Page 4 and

Requirements are stated differently for 3M Work Center Supervisor but appear to be similar duties. 4.2.3.4.6.3 states "Qualification as 3M Work Center Supervisor" while 4.2.3.5.7.2 sates "3M Work Center Supervisor Qualified (303)". Are these the same requirement or is there a difference between "Center Supervisor" and "Center

Supervisor Qualified"?

These are the same requirement and same 1 FTE.

Attachment 1A 4.2.5.1 Are BOTH personnel considered "Key Personnel"? In other words, does the government expect to see 2 resumes for transportaion equipment/vehicle dispatcher? Neither of the 2 FTEs are considered "Key Personnel" in the revised TO 1 PWS.

Attachment 1B 2.2 Page 1 Is this "PM and/or Site Manager" requirement in addition to the Attachment 1 Performance Work statement Section 6.1 requirement? If we just have 1 overall IDIQ PM for all MSOFS Task Orders, will you require a separate site lead for TO 2?

TO 2 requires a separate site lead. The site lead is considered the task lead and can be dual hatted as one of the positions required.

Attachment 1B 4.2.7.1 Page 3 Please clarify requirement…are candidates required to have IAT Level I and a CE Cert PRIOR to placement in the position, or are they allowed 6 months after assignment to complete the certifications IAW DoD 8570.

They are required IAT Level I and CE Cert PRIOR to placement.

1 12/5/2019

Document Section and/or Page # Question

These will be shared with all vendors, do NOT include any company identifying information.

Gov Response

RFP Section L.4.2 and Table L.1 Section L.4.2 says "provide one page summary" however Table L.1 specifies 5 pages for the summary. Please confirm we have 5 pages for the Past Performance summary.

The one-page summary in L.4.2 refers to the summary page that coincides to the Attachment 5 Past Performance Information

(PPI) Sheet. A maximum of 5 PPI sheets means a maximum of 5 pages for the summary.

RFP Section L.4.3 and Attachment 5 Section L differs from Attachment 5, is the USG okay if we edit/alter Attachment 5 so that it reponds to all subjects in Section L.4.3? Or would you perfer there be a continuation page to ensure compliance?

While the formatting is different, the content between L4.3 and Attachment 5 is materially the same. A conitnuation page can be used as necessary so long as the page count in Table L.1 is maintained.

RFP Section L.4.4 Section L alludes to the fact that the USG desires PPQ tracking and POC information included in the Past Performance volume. Does this go against the volume page count?

Attachment 5 has a table entry for POC information

RFP L-3.2

It will be a PII violation and a security protocal violation according to DSS to transimit the information requested about an individual, even with the statement listed at the bottom of the Attachment 4 that it is FOUO. That statement does not supersede the DSS and DoD IA/IT policies for PII transmission. The validation of the FCL is not done by validating an individuals clearance but done by validation of the organizations authorization through the National Industrial Security Program (NISP).

Recomendation #1 is to have the bidder input the FCL data (top section) and submit that along with a capture/screenshot of the bidders National Industrial Security

System (NISS) account which is part of the NISP that replaced the e-FCL and Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD). Recommendation #2 If the government wants to validate the clearance of the individual this will need to be done at award so the awarded company can input that individual into JPAS and manage the profile of the individual. The use of personnal information (PII) required to be submitted in Attachment 4, causes 2 major security violations for industry that could jepordize the organzations FCL and the transmitters individual security clearance.

PII data can be transmitted securely an in accordance with data protection regulations and laws via an encrypted email to the

Contracting Officer or sent via DoD SAFE. Company FCL, safeguarding, and key personnel security clearances must be verified prior to award.

Attach 1. PWS 6.4.4 The location of WDs has been moved to beta.SAM.gov will the government please update the PWS to reflect? PWS updated.

Attach 1. PWS 6.4.6 & 9 So will all travel be done as a Cost Reimbursable CLIN since the travel will be approved by the COR prior to purchase? Yes.

Attach 1. PWS 6.8

IAW the PWS "Actual Expenses. Payments for Travel and ODCs shall be limited to actual expenses, subject to the limitations of FAR 31.205." Is the government not allowing G&A costs to be added to the Travel and ODCs since there will be an administrative requirement from the program management office to facilitate, coordinate, plan and account for the proper aquisition of these items or services?

The Government will allow G&A or other applicable indirects as listed in the Attachment 3 Price Worksheet.

Attach 1. PWS 16 Is this a single PoP for a base of 5 years only or are there option periods? The IDIQ has a five year ordering period. Option periods will be specified at the task order level.

Attach 3 Price ELIN Labor Category

The ELIN Labor Categories provided are a title only and as the government directs in the instructions Tab that they will need to matched to the TOs specific job. Industry is capable of doing this but there must first be a LC description provided by the government in order to allow all bidders to provide FBLR on an equal and fair competition level. This will allow each offeror to provide the FBLR for the appropriate level of experience, qualifications and certifications on a level competetion or some offerors are able to bid lower rates to win at the IDIQ level but not able to perform at the TO level or at all. This creates an unfair competative advantage to the incumbents as these have been determined in the current contract and TOs.

A non-inclusive list of labor category descriptions are provided in the last tab of Attachment 3.

Attach 1a PWS TO1 Is this a current TO or stand alone contract being conducted? Will there be a transition period? Who is the incumbent if there is one? What is the awarded dollar value per year? What is the contract or TO number for this effort?

TO 1 is similar to a current TO. The incumbent is Skybridge Tactical.

Attach 1b PWS TO2 Is this a current TO or stand alone contract being conducted? Will there be a transition period? Who is the incumbent if there is one? What is the awarded dollar value per year? What is the contract or TO number for this effort?

TO 2 consists of several current TO's as well as new requirements. There are multiple incumbents to include Cydecor and

Mayvin.

Attach 1a PWS TO1

There are 9 Key Personnel for this TO is that correct? Are all 9 KP resumes required? If there is an incumbent in that position and the awardee will transition that KP is the resume required? The requirements in the RFP state that we have to present resumes and PII (attach 4) for all KP that we are submitting and putting forward in our proposal. Both the Department of Labor in CA and VA are not right to work, employment at will states. Both offices have stated that an employers “letter of intent” is considered a preliminary job offer to an employee if the work is awarded or performed by the employer. For the bidders to put forth not only the resume but the PII data required to check security clearances (attach 4) then this requires the bidding employer to provide the potential employee a “letter of intent”.

We are not saying that the DOL and submission of the resumes conflict. We are saying that the resume along with the PII needed for attach 4 would require the offerors to give LOI to potential employees. Then if awarded the offeror would then have to give right of first refusal to the potential employee as the DOL stated “letter of intent” is considered a preliminary job offer. This could replace and remove all KP across the Task Orders, creating a performance risk at contract start replacing all of the incumbent knowledge.

This creates a large risk to perform which is what is being evaluated by the government from each bidder during source selection. It additionally gives the incumbent a huge competitive advantage in showing this risk reduction that no one else bidding can show. Some of the incumbent employees have agreed to provide resumes but cannot sign a LOI or provide PII due to risk of termination or non-continuation of service from their current employer as briefed and told to them.

We are recommending leaving the resume requirement but removing the attach 4 requirement for KP at the Task Order Level only, understanding that the government will not be able to check individuals security clearances but that is an inherent task of the contract company and a contractual requirement. Add in the addition of a LOI for the Program Manager and have the attachment 4 requirement only for the IDIQ PM. This solves the entire problem of PII submission, LOI, the DOL requirements and it actually adds a level of confirmation to the government by requiring a LOI from the IDIQ PM.

The Key Personnel has been changed to reflect 6 FTEs instead of 9. Resumes are required for all Government identified Key

Personnel. It is the Government's expectation that those Key Personnel proposed, perform on the contract IAW SOFARS

Clause 5652.237-9001. All TO 1 positions are SCA covered. PII data can be transmitted securely an in accordance with data protection regulations and laws via an encrypted email to the Contracting Officer or sent via DoD SAFE. Company FCL, safeguarding, and key personnel security clearances must be verified prior to award.

Attach 1b PWS TO2 There are no Key Personnel for this TO is that correct? Recommend having the offeror provide the Site Lead/TO Lead resume at submission of the RFP. Key Personnel will be required for TO 2.

RFP L-4.3

The section L.4.3 states "prime or subcontractor performing 50% or more of the total contract amount on the PP submission". Subcontractors will not perform 50% or more on a contract that they are a subcontractor on, the most they would perform is 49% or the prime could potentially be in violation of the FAR for not performing 51%.

Recommend having offerors who provides PP submissions that are as a subcontractor be 25% or more on the submitted PPI/PPQs.

For larger IDIQ contracts, it can be common for a subcontractor to perform 50% or more of a single task order. The prime would still maintain 51% or more of the total contract value.

RFP Table L.1 & L.4.2 Will the government please confirm if the Past Performance Summary page limit is 1 page in L.4.2 or 5 as given in Table L.1?

The one-page summary in L.4.2 refers to the summary page that coincides to the Attachment 5 Past Performance Information

(PPI) Sheet. A maximum of 5 PPI sheets means a maximum of 5 pages for the summary.

RFP PP Relevancy Table L.3

Would the government reconsider the "Awarded Contract Value" section dollar amounts. This is an SDVOSB set aside and the 10M+ for Very Relevant would limit competition of capable SBs that have mulitple smaller size past performances in all task areas but not one large PP citation. This is a SB set aside with a SB being classified at 15M or below, with this PP criteria that would mean the government would limit to SBs that are between 10M and 15M annual revenue companies.

Additionally this could mean that a bidder only has a single contract at Very Relevant levels and is using a majority of teammates PP for this factor when only 1 PP citation is required of the prime. Recommend: Lowering Very Relevant to 5M+ annually and requiring the prime to submit at least 2 PP citations.

The Government believes with a receny period of 5 years, that the Small Business Size standard of $16.5M does not limit the number of prime submissions.

RFP L.4.7.1, page 37 of 43

Request the government consider modification of the following sentence regarding Relevancy to enable the evaluation board greater flexibility to exercise their judgement when evaluating past performance: "A submitted effort that has less than a 'Relevant' rating assessed for 'scope requirement in PWS' SHALL NOT be capable of receiving a 'Relevent' or 'Very Relevant' rating for effort overall." Recommend modify to read "...SHALL NOT be capable of receiving a 'Very Relevant' rating for effort overall." This would permit the board to consider the past performance 'Relevant' overall should they determine it so after considering all the other factors within

Table L.3.

The Government believes there is a benefit to having a company with SOF and more so with NSWC past performance and plans to give credit for such experience.

2 12/5/2019

Document Section and/or Page # Question

These will be shared with all vendors, do NOT include any company identifying information.

Gov Response

RFP Table L.3, page 37 of 43

Some forces that routinely deploy as an organic component within NSW Squadrons such as Navy EOD have similar training and operational support requirements that demand contracted expertise at a high level very similar to that required by NSW forces. Request modify language within Table L.3 in the "Scope Required in PWS" row under the 'Relevant' column to read "SOF support, including forces that routinely deploy as a component of an NSW Squadron such as Navy EOD, in most of the

PWS services: Logistics, Intel, PM, Administrative, and Technical Support".

Other than specifying Navy EOD, it is difficult to define "forces that routinely deploy as a component of an NSW Squadron" and would then be nearly impossible to evaluate fairly.

RFP L.4.1, page 35 of 43 Should TOs within an IDIQ MAC, such as NSWCOM LATS, be considered separate examples of Past Performance or should that be combined into a single Past

Performance Information Sheet?

In the event an offeror submits separate submissions for the basic IDIQ and its awarded task orders, the Government will evaluate the most relevant of the submissions.

RFP Table L.1, page 33 of 43 In order to enable offerors to clearly demonstrate their thorough understanding of the requirements and their ability to perform the work, request the government increase the page limit for 'Subfactor 2/Technical and Management Approach' from 10 pages to at least 15 pages but not more than 20.

The Government will consider the page increase prior to release of the final RFP.

RFP Section L.1.5.4, Page 32 of 43

Section L.1.5.4 states "The following will be exempt from page limitations for the RFP: Cover sheets; Table of contents; List of Table and Drawings; Glossaries;

Acronym List; and Compliance Matrix." Question (a): Can the Government clarify that the Glossary and Acronym List are equivalent, and that a Glossary which defines all acronyms used is require for each volume? Question (b): There are no further references to a "Compliance Matrix" in the Section L instructions. Can the Government clarify if a compliance matrix is required for each volume, and if so, to what level the compliance must be referenced? In other words, does compliance need to be traced from Volume Number/Section to Section L, Section M, IDIQ PWS, Task Order 1 PWS, and Task Order 2 PWS?

A compliance matrix is not required nor desired.

Attachment 1 - PWS

MSOFS and

Attachment 1A - TO 1

PWS LOGSU2

Attachment 1 - PWS MSOFS

Section 6.2, Page 2

Attachment 1 - PWS MSOFS Section 6.2 states "The Contracting Officer may determine, based on complexity of task, that a task lead is not required for certain task orders and responsibility for execution will be retained by the IDIQ PM." Attachment 1A - TO 1 PWS LOGSU2 does not include a requirement to designate a Task Lead.

Question: Can the Government clarify that the IDIQ PM will be required to serve as the Task Lead for the NSWG-2 LOGSUPPU TO -or- if it is intended that the

Weapons Program Manager serve as the Task Lead for this TO?

The Contractor may determine if one of the positions will be designated as the Task Lead or chooses to use the IDIQ PM.

Attachment 1B - TO 2

PWS N2 Intel

Analyst_ISR_PED_SS

O

Section 4, Pages 2-6

No key personnel are identified by the PWS requirements for the NSWG-10 Intelligence Analysis Coordinators, Advanced Training Coordinators, and SSO Task Order.

Question: Can the Government clarify which of the 11 positions in Section 4 should be identified as key personnel and will therefore require resumes for submission with the proposal?

Key Personnel will be required for TO 2.

Attachment 1B - TO 2

PWS N2 Intel

Analyst_ISR_PED_SS

O

Section 2.2, Page 1

Section 2.2 states "The Contractor shall designate in writing a Program Manager and/or Site Manager to serve as the Primary Contractor POC for the services covered by this PWS. This person shall be the primary interface between the Contractor and the Customer if there are any disputes, concerns, or complaints." This requirement raises questions about the requirement for the number of "Site Managers" and the applicablity of the Task Lead requirement (Attachment 1 - PWS MSOFS Section 6.2, Page 2) for this TO. Question (a): Since this TO involves performance at two sites (Virginia Beach, VA and Coronado, CA), can the Government clarify if TO 2 PWS Section 2.2 implies two Site Managers are required? Question (b): If two Site Managers are required, can the Government clarify if a single Task Lead needs to be designated (as either one of the two Site Managers, or as the IDIQ PM), or if only one Site Manager is required, then can the Government clarify if this Site Manager can be designated as the Task Lead to meet IDIQ PWS MSOFS Section 6.2 requirements?

TO 2 requires a separate site lead. The site lead is considered the task lead and can be dual hatted as one of the positions required.

RFP Sections L and M

The nature of M-SOFS services requires significant financial resources to support management of multiple TOs under an IDIQ contract, multiple subcontractors, OCONUS deployments and travel, and surge requirements. Question: Would the Government consider adding evaluation criteria to the RFP which requires Offerors to submit a Letter of Evidence to a line of credit for at least $1M and/or a Balance Sheet as part of the proposal to assist the Government in evaluating Offerors' demonstrated financial capacity to successfully perform the work?

The Government will consider this prior to final RFP release.

RFP

Section L.1.5.4, Table L.1, Page 33 of 43, and Section

L.4.2, Page 35 of 43

Referenced Table states a 5 page limit for Factor 2: Past Performance Summary. However, Section L.4.2 instructions state "Provide a "one-page summary…" Question:

Can the Government please clarify the page limit for the Past Performance Summary, either 5 pages or 1 page?

The one-page summary in L.4.2 refers to the summary page that coincides to the Attachment 5 Past Performance Information

(PPI) Sheet. A maximum of 5 PPI sheets means a maximum of 5 pages for the summary.

RFP

Section L.1.5.4, Table L.1, Referenced Table states a 10 page limit for Subfactor 2: Technical and Management Approach, "exclusive of any Teaming/Subcontracting Arrangement documents."

However, there are no further references to a "Teaming/Subcontracting Arrangement documents" in the Section L instructions.

Question: Can the Government clarify if a Teaming/Subcontractor Arrangements are required for inclusion in Volume II (Factor 1: Technical Capability). If so, will the

Government exclude those docuemts from the page count limitations?

The only agreement required is the Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture Agreement as requested in Volume I, if applicable. If an offeror has a teaming agreement with one or more teammates, that agreement may be submitted and would be excluded from the technical page count as stated in Table L.1

RFP Section L.4.3, Page 36 of 43

Third bullet from top of referenced page describing Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheets states "Describe overall scope of the effort and how it relates to NAVSOF, SOF and or DOD exercise and training program services."

Question: Given the broader scope of the M-SOFS IDIQ requirements, can the Government please clarify if the relevance of each reference be limited to exercise and training program services, or if the relevance should also include logistics, technical, program management, intelligence, engineering and administrative services?

The PPI sheet was incorrect and has been revised to state "Logistics, Intel, PM, Administrative and Technical FTE Support"

RFP L1.3, Page 32 of 43 Can the Government provide further guidance on the submission of the proposal via email, such as submission of multiple files in one email, file naming conventions and delivery confirmation reporting?

The submissions must be electronic. Submissions may be sent in separate files. Submissions may be sent via DoD SAFE. File naming conventions are not mandated but should easily identify the volume and/or contents. The offeror may ask the contracting officer to confirm receipt of all files.

RFP SF-33, Page 1 of 43 Since the SF-33 does not specify a time deadline for submission of offers, may we assume delivery by 23:59 PST on the due date constitutes a compliant proposal submittal?

The final SF 33 will have a due date with time.

RFP Sections L and M Will the Government consider requiring an Offeror Summary Table, including all Contractors, JV Team Members, and subcontractors and their appropriate workshare, in Volume 3 to support determination of eligibilty for consideration of Past Peformance?

Subcontract consent letters are provided as an attachment to the RFP. Should a company choose to include a summary table, the

Government would accept it.

3 12/5/2019