Warfighter_Industry_Q As_-_August_12_2015.pdf

Warfighter Integration 8/12/2015-1:07 PM Industry Questions and Answers

Subject Location Reference Question Response 1 Draft RFP CLIN 0105, Page 6 and CLIN 1105, Page 10:

CLIN 0105, Page 6 and CLIN 1105, Page 10: The description for this CLIN states “GM LOE Watch Standing – CPFF”. In Section H, page 21: Special Contract Requirements: H-TEAM-01, the contract type anticipated is “Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Completion CLINs – Fee Determination (Mar 2015)”.

We request clarification of the acronym “LOE” in the CLIN 0105 description, as it would appear that this CLIN may be governed by a different contract type (“LOE” is typically used to describe “Level of Effort”).

Yes, this will be a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) level of effort (LOE) contract line item number

(CLIN).

2 Draft RFP Section H-05, Page 21, Paragraph b.(2).

Section H-05, Page 21, Paragraph b.(2). There are two paragraph b.(2) statements with “OR” between then. They appear to be contradictory with each other, so “OR” doesn’t make sense. Should one of those statements be removed?

One of the statements will be removed in the final RFP.

3 Draft RFP Section H, Clause H- TEAMS-01, page 21

CLAUSE H-TEAMS-01: COST PLUS FIXED FEE, COMPLETION CLINs

– FEE DETERMINATION (Mar 2015)

How will the Government determine contract completion?

Contract Completion will be based on the performance of non-severable services within the scope of the PWS that constitutes a single undertaking with a defined end-product and that cannot feasibily be subdivided for performance.

4 Draft RFP Section I, page 38, DFARs 252.222-7003 Permit From Italian Inspectorate of Labor (June 1997) As Italy is not identified as a performance location in the PWS, would MDA please clarify the need and/or consider the removal of DFAR 252.222-7003 “Permit from Italian Inspectorate of Labor” (June 1997) from Section I of the DRFP?

The clause will be deleted in the final RFP.

5 Draft RFP Section I, Page 40, DFARS 52.222-2 Is the zero value for overtime a place holder or is that a policy statement?

In accordance with Section I, FAR 52.222-2 overtime premiums are not allowed for this effort.

6 Draft RFP RFP Sec I and K, 52.215-10 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data AUG

This acquisition is competitive therefore certified cost or pricing data is not required. Please delete this provision.

The Government does not anticpate deleting this clause because it will apply if only one proposal is received.

7 Draft RFP RFP Sec I and K, 52.215-11 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data—Modifications AUG 2011

This acquisition is competitive therefore certified cost or pricing data is not required. Please delete this provision.

The Government does not anticpate deleting this clause because it will apply to all modificaitons over $700,000.

8 Draft RFP RFP Sec I and K, 52.215-12 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data OCT 2010 This acquisition is competitive therefore certified cost or pricing data is not required. Please delete this provision.

The Government does not anticpate deleting this clause because it will apply if only one proposal is received.

9 Draft RFP RFP Sec I and K, 52.215-13 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data—Modifications OCT

This acquisition is competitive therefore certified cost or pricing data is not required. Please delete this provision.

The Government does not anticpate deleting this clause because it will apply to all modificaitons over $700,000.

10 Draft RFP RFP Sec I and K, 52.215-21 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data – Modifications OCT 2010

This acquisition is competitive therefore certified cost or pricing data is not required. Please delete this provision.

The Government does not anticpate deleting this clause.

11 Draft RFP Section L, page 63 52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data (OCT 2010)

This acquisition is competitive therefore certified cost or pricing data is not required. Please delete this provision.

The Government does not anticpate deleting this clause.

12 Section L Paragraph L- 1.5.e.3), page 3.

Paragraph requires offeror to submit an OCI mitigation plan. It states the OCI Mitigation Plan will not be evaluated as part of Factor F1 OCI Management plan. Table L-1 Proposal Organization and Content does not indicate where the OCI Mitigation Plan is to be submitted.

Can the government clarify how and where the required OCI Mitigation Plan is to be submitted?

The OCI Mitigation Plan should be submitted to the PCO at TEAMS_OCI@mda.mil, see Section L, L-1.5e3 for additional details.

13 Section L L-5.0 Should the “company information” be included Tab 1:

Master Table of Contents; Tab 2: Proposal Cross Reference Matrix; or Tab 3: Executive Summary content?

Company information should be put in the Executive Summary Tab 3, Volume I.

14 Section L L-7.0 Volume III:

Cybersecurity Risk Management Plan, Should the “company information” be included Tab 1:

Master Table of Contents; Tab 2: Proposal Cross Reference Matrix; or Tab 3: Executive Summary content?

In the Final RFP, Volume III Cybersecurity Risk Management Plan and the associated evaluation criteria will be removed.

15 Section L Paragraph L- 9.1.d.2), page 16

Understanding the RFP required Small Business Goals is an important aspect for Prime offerors when making teaming decisions. The overall small business goal is listed as TBD in the draft RFP.

Can the government provide the overall small business goal for this RFP as soon as possible (in advance of final RFP release)?

Subject to change in the Final RFP, the current SB Subcontracting Goals for Warfighter are as follows:

SB: 60%

VOSB: 3%

SDVOSB: 3%

HUBZone: 3%

SDB: 5%

WOSB: 5%

16 Section L Paragraph L- 9.1.d.2), page 16

Understanding the RFP required Small Business Goals is an important aspect for Prime offerors when making teaming decisions. The socio-economic goals in this draft RFP are drastically different from those in the Security and Program Protection DRFP recently released.

What is the government’s methodology for establishing those goals? If industry could understand the methodology, it would help with teaming decisions for yet-to-be-released full & open RFPs. Would the government consider a separate Fedbizzopps posting with the goals for all the full & open contracts?

The overall Small Business Goal is based on historical data. The Socio-economic goals are based on DoD Statutory Small Business Goals.

17 Section L L-14.3 Cost Reasonableness and Realism

While the Offeror shares the Government’s concern about the reasonableness and realism of indirect rates, use of the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act (SCA) minimum fringe benefit cost of $4.02/hr seems neither reasonable nor realistic. Applying a SCA benchmark to professional services, which is what this TEAMS acquisition is intended to be, seems to be an apples-to-oranges comparison.

● Would the Government consider deleting the reference to the SCA as a benchmark of fringe benefit costs? ● Alternately would the Government use some other benchmark that is directly applicable to professional services?

● Or would the Government consider simply evaluating the Offeror’s fringe benefits on its own merits based on the criteria in Sec L-14.3?

The Government does not anticipate deleting the reference to SCA or using a different benchmark.

18 Section L L-14.5 Pricing Volume Narrative (Word Doc)

For the cost/price volume narrative, please revise L-14.5 such that an Offeror may submit its Government-approved estimating system letter or audit report from either DCMA or DCAA in lieu of the entirety of the following requirement.

4) The offeror must provide a summary description of the offeror’s standard estimating system or methods, current policies, and/or new policies. The offeror must state whether the estimating system and new policies have been reviewed by the Government and must provide evidence of review and/or Administrative Contracting Officer approval. The offeror must provide any known/cited estimating system deficiencies and identify any deviations from the offeror’s established/standard estimating procedures used in preparing this proposal.

For known/cited estimating system or methods non-compliances, provide a schedule and description of corrective actions the offeror is taking to eliminate the non-compliance issues.

The Government does not anticipate making this requested change.

19 Section L L-14.5 Pricing Volume Narrative (Word Doc)

For the cost/price volume narrative, please revise L-14.5 such that an Offeror may submit its Government-approved purchasing system letter or audit report from either DCMA or DCAA in lieu of the entirety of the following requirement.

5) The offeror must provide a summary description of the offeror’s purchasing system or methods. The offeror must state whether the purchasing system has been reviewed by the Government and provide evidence of review and/or Administrative Contracting Officer approval. The offeror must provide any known/cited purchasing system deficiencies and identify any deviations from the offeror’s established/standard purchasing procedures used in preparing this proposal.

For known/cited purchasing system or methods non-compliances, provide a schedule and description of corrective actions the offeror is taking to eliminate the non-compliance issues.

The Government does not anticipate making this requested change.

20 Section L L-14.5 Pricing Volume Narrative (Word Doc)

For the cost/price volume narrative, please revise L-14.5 such that an Offeror may submit its Government-approved accounting system letter or audit report from either DCMA or DCAA in lieu of the entirety of the following requirement. 6) In accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a) (1) and 9.104-1(e), the offeror must use an accounting system that is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract. The offeror must provide a summary description of the offeror’s accounting system and state whether it is compliant with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The offeror must also state whether the accounting system has been reviewed and approved by the Government and provide evidence of the review and approval by DCAA / DCMA. The offeror must provide any known/cited accounting system deficiencies and identify any deviations from the offeror’s standard procedures in preparing this proposal.

For known/cited accounting system or methods non-compliances, provide a schedule and description of corrective actions the offeror is taking to eliminate the non-compliance issues.

The Government does not anticipate making this requested change.

21 Section L L-14.5 Pricing Volume Narrative (Word Doc)

For the cost/price volume narrative, please revise L-14.5 such that an Offeror may submit evidence of its CAS Disclosure Statement having been determined to be adequate by either DCMA or DCAA in lieu of the entirety of the following requirement.

7) The offeror must provide a summary description of the offeror’s current Cost Accounting Standards disclosure statement. The offeror must state whether the current Cost Accounting Standards disclosure statement has been reviewed by the Government and provide evidence of review and/or Administrative Contracting Officer approval. The offeror must provide any currently known/cited Cost Accounting Standards non-compliances and identify any deviations from the offeror’s Cost Accounting Standards disclosure statement used in preparing this proposal.

For known/cited Cost Accounting Standards non-compliances provide a schedule and description of corrective actions the offeror is taking to eliminate the non-compliance issues.

The Government does not anticipate making this requested change.

22 Section M M-11.5 Cost and Price Factor Evaluation Results

Please clarify the meaning of “incentive fee” in the third bullet of M-11.5 Cost and Price Factor Evaluation Results, which currently reads as follows. “The Government’s estimate of the realistic cost of successfully completing the cost reimbursable CLINs using the Offeror’s unique approach and proposed incentive fee associated with those CLINs”

Reference to incentive fee will be deleted from M-11.5 and an updated Section M will be included in the final RFP.

23 Performance Work Statement

Paragraph 3.6.b The text states “DOES THIS APPLY TO GM.” What is the resolution?

The statement "DOES THIS APPLY TO GM" will be deleted.

24 Performance Work Statement

Paragraph 3.6.d The text states “DOES THIS APPLY TO GM.” What is the resolution?

The statement "DOES THIS APPLY TO GM" will be deleted.

25 Performance Work Statement

Paragraph 5.0 Reference PWS 5.0 Cybersecurity Risk Management, the Initial Statement of Compliance is due within 14 days of contract issuance and shall be provided using the Government provided format.

Since this is a new requirement under TEAMS that was not required under MiDAESS IDIQ or Task Order efforts (we are familiar with Travel, Property, MSR, Cost formats), would the government provide a draft of the format they are considering since it is due only 14 days after award?

This requirement will be deleted and the change will be incorporated into the final RFP.

26 Attachment J-03

DD254

Contract Security Classification Specification

Page 11 Please define the terms “general, broadcast, or universal email addresses”

This is template language that refers to any non-DoD .mil address. If FOUO/CUI will be sent to a non DoD .mil address it must be encrypted.

27 Attachment L- 07 Excel Pricing Workbook

Cost Roll-Up Tab, Row 29

In the Cost Roll-up Tab is the Prime Offeror’s Fixed Fee rate expected to be input on this tab in row 29?

● If so please unprotect row 29 to enable the offeror to set its own fee percent.

● If not please clarify where the Prime Offeror is to input Fixed Fee rate separately on this tab.

Input the fixed fee rate in the revised final RFP Excel Pricing Workbook.

28 Attachment L- 07 Excel Pricing Workbook

Cost Roll-Up Tab, Rows 31:33

Rows 31:33 are labelled for CLIN 0001 but there are no rows for Travel Option CLIN 1001.

● Is Travel Option CLIN 1001 to be input in the same row as 0001?

● Or will the Government add rows for CLIN 1001 separately?

The Final RFP Excel Pricing Workbook Cost Roll-up Tab will include a row for the input of travel and surge dollars specified in the RFP.

29 Attachment L- 07 Excel Pricing Workbook

Cost Roll-Up Tab, Row 35

In the Cost Roll-up Tab the RFP-specifies the amounts for fully-burdened Surge CLIN 0003 are inclusive of indirect costs. ● Please add rows to show the cost and fee amounts included in the RFP-specified amounts. ● Please allow the Offeror to input its fixed fee percentage independently.

The Final RFP Excel Pricing Workbook Cost Roll-up Tab will include a row for the input of travel, ODC, and surge dollars specified in the RFP. The Prime offeror’s Section B must reflect these amounts, which are inclusive of indirect costs for all CLINs, and inclusive of fixed fee for the surge CLIN. The offeror will allocate the total price for the Surge CLIN between cost and fixed fee using the same fee rate as for the other labor CLINs.

30 Attachment L- 07 Excel Pricing Workbook

Cost Roll-Up Tab, Rows 133:155

What contract type applies to GM LOE Watch Standing CLINs 0105/1105?

Does the title imply these CLINs are CPFF-LOE?

Yes the CLIN is CPFF-LOE.

31 Attachment L- 07 Excel Pricing Workbook

Labor Resources (Subs+IWTA) Tab, Columns V:AA

The formulas in columns V:AA of the Labor Resources (Subs+IWTA) sheet reference the same FBLR sheet as the Labor Resources (Prime) sheet. The FBLR sheet does not differentiate by company.

In the Prime Offeror’s submission, how are we to input subcontractor rates, particularly if the subcontractor does not wish to disclose their direct/indirect rate information to the prime in the FBLR sheet?

Each subcontractor EPW will include a subcontractor FBLR tab. The subcontractor will either submit an unsanitized EPW for inclusion with the prime's proposal, or will submit a sanitized EPW to the prime contractor and submit an unsanitized EPW directly to the government.The subcontractor FBLR tab will be linked to the Labor Resources (Subs+IWTA) tab for each subcontractor's labor resources.

32 Attachment L- 07 Excel Pricing Workbook

Labor Category Tab, Rows 9, 12

In reviewing Section L, L-14.3 Cost Reasonableness and Realism (p.23-25), the PWS and the nature of the work on this contract, establishing a minimum benchmark of 10 years of experience for the Advanced labor category skill level may pose unintended risk to the Government. A minimum of 10 years of experience may not have sufficient seniority or realism for the more complex elements of the PWS, e.g. strategic level integration with the Services, Joint Staff and CCMDs. Furthermore, an experience benchmark that is too low skews the assessment of rate reasonableness and realism.

Please adjust the Advanced skill level benchmark and ERI survey mean to reflect 15-20 years of experience.

The labor competency descriptions reflect the educational and experience levels required to successfully perform the performance objectives.

33 Attachment L- 07 Excel Pricing Workbook

Labor Category Tab, Rows 9-10, 12-13

The OSA Advanced and Engineer Advanced have a minimum experience level of 10 years but the corresponding Intermediates have 7 years. This ‘step-up’ of 3 years does not have significant differentiation.

Would the government consider increasing the Advanced experience level and salary survey rate to higher minimum years of experience?

The labor competency descriptions reflect the educational and experience levels required to successfully perform the performance objectives.

34 Attachment L- 07 Excel Pricing Workbook

Labor Categories and ERI Benchmarks Tab.

The nature of the work on this contract will generate the need for advanced labor with much more than 10 years of experience. Establishing a minimum of ten year experience requirements for the advanced labor categories (Operations Support Analyst and Engineer) has two unintended consequences. First, it appears MDA has used the minimum experience to select the ERI benchmark to use for establishing the reasonableness and realism of the anticipated Direct Labor Rates, and thus skewing the assessment of reasonableness and realism.

Second, the separation between the intermediate and advanced labor category experience requirements (seven and ten years) is minor, and thus the discrimination between advanced and intermediate labor capabilities will also be minor.

Would the government consider either increasing the minimum years of experience required to qualify for an advanced labor category, or recognize that ten years is a minimum, 15-20 years is more representative of the advanced labor workforce to meet this requirement thereby using a different ERI benchmark comparison that more accurately reflects the workforce requirements?

The labor competency descriptions reflect the educational and experience levels required to successfully perform the performance objectives.

35 Attachment L- 07 Excel Pricing

Labor Resources Tab In the Labor Resources Tab please delete the requirement that the “BOE must also be referenced.”

This requirement will be deleted and the change will be incorporated into the final RFP.

36 Attachment L- 07 Excel Pricing

Labor Resources (Subs+IWTA) Tab In the Subcontracts Tab “the offeror must identify the subcontractor or IWTA, along with the associated labor hours, cost and subcontractor fee by CFY using at least one row per CLIN.”

● Is the offeror expected to input its subcontractors’ FBLRs into the FBLR tab and if so, in which cells?

● If not the FBLR tab then where?

The prime contractor should input the FBLR rate directly on the Labor Resources Tab - Subcontractors and IWTAs, and the prime contractor shall instruct the subcontractor to submit an unsanitized workbook directly to the Government.

37 Attachment L- 07 Excel Pricing

Contract Staffing Summary Tab

In the Contract Staffing Summary Tab please clarify that the prime contractor will add BOE in column T, not column Q.

The BOE information should be listed in the column labeled BOE. This correction will be updated in the revised Excel Pricing Workbook and the change incorporated into the final

RFP.

38 Attachment L- 07 Excel Pricing

Cost Roll-up Tab In the Cost Roll-up Tab the RFP-specifies the amounts for fully-burdened Surge CLIN 0003 are inclusive of indirect costs. Please add rows to show the cost and fee amounts included in the RFP-specified amounts and allow the Offeror to input its fixed fee percentage independently.

The Final RFP Excel Pricing Workbook Cost Roll-up Tab will include a row for the input of travel, ODC, and surge dollars specified in the RFP. The Prime offeror’s Section B must reflect these amounts, which are inclusive of indirect costs for all CLINs, and inclusive of fixed fee for the surge CLIN. The offeror will allocate the total price for the Surge CLIN between cost and fixed fee using the same fee rate as for the other labor CLINs.

39 Attachment L- 07 Excel Pricing

Cost Roll-up Tab In the Cost Roll-up Tab is the Prime Offeror’s Fixed Fee rate expected to be input on this tab in row 29?

● If so please unprotect row 29 to enable the offeror to set its own fee percent.

● If not please clarify where the Prime Offeror is to input Fixed Fee rate separately on this tab.

The Final RFP Excel Pricing Workbook Cost Roll-up Tab will include a row for the input of travel, ODC, and surge dollars specified in the RFP. The Prime offeror’s Section B must reflect these amounts, which are inclusive of indirect costs for all CLINs, and inclusive of fixed fee for the surge CLIN. The offeror will allocate the total price for the Surge CLIN between cost and fixed fee using the same fee rate as for the other labor CLINs.

40 Section L Reference L-9.1.d.2 (small business goals). While separate goals are identified for Service Disabled Veteran Owned and Veteran Owned, could a Service Disabled Veteran Owned count toward both requirements?

Yes. A small business can receive credit for every socio-economic category it is qualified under.

41 Section L Reference L-9.1.d.2 (small business goals). If a small business is both woman owned and small disadvantaged, can the company count toward both goals? If yes, would the goal for the company be 45% (combination of WOSB and SDB)?

Yes. A small business can receive credit for every socio-economic category it is qualified under. However, socio-economic goals are not combined.

42 Section L Reference L-9.1.d.2 (small business goals). Does the NASIC size standard ($15M) apply to the specific socio-economic goals (VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, etc)?

No. The NAICS code assigned to this requirement is specifically for the prime contractor and only identifies the size standard to determine if that business is considered small under this acquisition. The prime contractor should assign an appropriate NAICS code for work to be performed by a subcontractor. This NAICS size standard will determine the size of the subcontractor.

43 Section L and M

Reference L-3.2 (Proposals) and M-2.1. L-3.2 is confusing with regard to submission of multiple proposals. Paragraph states “Offerors are permitted to submit a maximum of one proposal”, but then goes on to discuss multiple proposals; “The submission of more than one proposal is simply an opportunity to propose differing technical and/or management solutions to accomplish the PWS requirements”. M-2.1 states “An offeror may submit more than one proposal but no more than two”.

Are multiple proposals permitted? Yes. Offerors are permitted to submit a maximum of two proposals. The Section L language will be updated in the final RFP.

44 Section L Reference L-12.1 (Contractor Team). The incumbent for this effort (MiDAESS TOs DDW-01 and DDW-02) has locked down their team through exclusive teaming.

In the interest of generating competition for this requirement, request the MDA consider prohibiting exclusive teaming.

The Government does not intend to dictate requirements for teaming agreements. However, all offerors must comply with FAR clause 52.203-6 regarding subcontractor sales to the Government.

45 Section M Reference M-3.1 (Table M-1). The explanation of Table M-1 states that “Factor F5 will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at Table M-6”. Table M-6 states that “Acceptable” includes “the offeror’s performance record is unknown” with an additional note “In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR

15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of Acceptability/Unacceptability, “Unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.” This approach to evaluating past performance appears to introduce significant risk.

Would the MDA consider removing this provision and require offerors to have relevant past performance?

The Government does not intend to make this requested change. Relevant Past Performance is being evaluated to determine if acceptable/unacceptable.

46 Section M Reference M-9.1 (Emphasis). The paragraph states “While the Government’s evaluation will assess the offeror’s (inclusive of team members) ability to perform the entire PWS, the evaluation will emphasize the offeror’s demonstrated capability with respect to the following:

• Warfighter Strategic Integration and Policy Development

• Current Operations and BMDS Strategic Integration Support

• Watch Officer Operations/Situational Awareness

• Program and System Level BMDS Execution “ Is it correct that the last item (“Program and System Level BMDS Execution”) refers to Performance Objectives 6,7 &8? Performance Objectives 3 & 4 will not receive the same level of emphasis in the evaluation as the other Performance Objectives.

Will the MDA please provide more detail as to how this evaluation will be conducted?

Program and System Level BMDS Execution refers to Performance Objectives 6, 7, and 8.

Performance Objectives 3 and 4 will not receive the same level of emphasis in the evaluation as the other Performance Objectives.

47 Section M Reference M-9.4, Table M-8 (Definitions). The only distinction in the definitions between color/rating Blue/Outstanding and Purple/Good appears to be the number of “strengths” (Blue contains “multiple strengths”, Purple contains “at least one strength”).

Is this correct? What will occur if one proposal contains 2 strengths and another proposal contains 3 strengths? Would the proposal with 3 strengths be evaluated as superior?

Ratings will be assigned based upon a qualitative assessment consistent with the evaluation factors and ratings defined in Section M.

48 Section M Reference M-10.3 (Transition Plan). Will the Transition Plan receive a color/rating? Yes, the Management Subfactor "Transition Plan" will be evaluated in accordance with Section M-10.5.

49 Draft RFP Section H Page 21 H-TEAMS-01 Cost Plus Fixed Fee Completion CLINs. Are all labor CLINs listed in the solicitation considered completion CLINS?

Yes.

50 Section L L-1.2 describes Major Subcontractors as 10% or greater of total price, L-14.1 describes Major Subcontractors as 10% or greater of proposed hours.

Will a subcontractor be considered "Major" based on hours or price?

A "Major" Subcontractor is describe as performing 10% or greater of proposed hours. The change will be reflected in the final RFP.

51 Section L Page 27 Contract Staffing Summary Tab: "The prime contractor will add BOE in column Q." Column Q of the Contract Staffing Summary Tab in Attachment L-07 has a head of CFY5 Hours.

Can MDA explain the instructions for adding BOE? The Final RFP Excel Pricing Workbook Cost Roll-up Tab will include a row for the input of travel, ODC, and surge dollars specified in the RFP. The Prime offeror’s Section B must reflect these amounts, which are inclusive of indirect costs for all CLINs, and inclusive of fixed fee for the surge CLIN. The offeror will allocate the total price for the Surge CLIN between cost and fixed fee using the same fee rate as for the other labor CLINs.

Sheet1