ATCH S-5 MCPP II RFP Q_A.pdf

ATCH: S-5 - MCPP II Q&A – M6700426R0007 0002

1. RFP Section: Section L

• Topic or Section Reference: Section L and Attachment S-4

• Industry Question/Clarification: Per the MCPP II RFP—Section L states: “Offerors are responsible for forwarding Non-Disclosure Agreements for joint venture entities and/or subcontractors prior to disseminating the Program Data and Technical Library." Attachment S-4 Non-Disclosure Agreement states: “The Company affirms that only the individuals below are authorized to access the information and that no further disclosure will occur without written Government approval." Do we need Government approval prior to disseminating the information to our partners? How should we expect Government approval?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, the Government approves adding the additional individuals to access the Program Data and Technical Library, based on the NDAs submitted for the applicable joint venture and/or subcontractor personnel in accordance with Section L and Attachment S-4. Final acceptance and approval will be provided via email upon the Government’s receipt and review of all required NDAs.

2. RFP Section: RFP

• Topic or Section Reference: RFP

• Industry Question/Clarification: How can I access the list of vendors that attended Industry Day and the Contract Reference Library as a potential Partner or Subcontractor?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: For visibility into the companies currently associated with this requirement, you may view the list of interested vendors on our SAM.gov posting at the following link: https://sam.gov/opp/384cae241c0d4579bee997f6d27e8e64/view Please note that only prime contractors may request Government Furnished Information (GFI) and submit proposals under this solicitation. See Section L Instructions to Offerors and Attachment S-4 NDA regarding requests for GFI.

3. RFP Section: Section L and S-1 Program Data and Tech Library https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fsam.gov%2Fopp%2F384cae241c0d4579bee997f6d27e8e64%2Fview

• Topic or Section Reference: Section L and S-1 Program Data and Tech Library

• Industry Question/Clarification: Are we required to return the hard drives? Are there any other special instructions?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The hard drives must be returned once the best and final proposals have been submitted. All vendors must adhere to the following requirements:

1. Do NOT use Government-provided equipment if your agency’s security policies automatically apply passwords, encryption, or other security controls to external drives. These automated protections can overwrite, encrypt, or wipe the contents of the hard drive.

2. The hard drive shall not be connected to or accessed from any Government network that blocks USB storage devices or enforces password/encryption requirements for external media. This restriction is mandatory under Federal IT security policies and applies to all personnel and subcontractors.

3. Hard drives must be accessed only on vendor-owned, non-Government systems that are completely separate from Government networks.

4. All information contained on the hard drives is considered Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). Vendors are required to safeguard, store, and handle this information in accordance with the NDA submitted with your proposal and all applicable CUI protection requirements.

5. Information on the drives may not be shared outside of your authorized proposal team. Subcontractors may only access the data if they are covered under your NDA and included in your proposal team.

6. If you encounter any issues accessing the drive or notice anything unexpected, notify the Contracting Officer immediately. Do not attempt to modify, repair, or alter the drive or its contents.

4. RFP Section: Section L-4; 9.1

• Topic or Section Reference: M-4 Factor 4 Past Performance (Volume V)

• Industry Question/Clarification: Currently, Section M of the RFP states: "Master contract vehicles (e.g., Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs), IDIQ contracts) do not satisfy the Past Performance requirement unless submitted together with a TO similar in size, and relevancy to this requirement and awarded and performed under the vehicle." Under Magnitude: "-Magnitude: Number of employees and annual value of referenced effort (to be considered relevant, reference should have more than 200 employees assigned to this effort and an annual value exceeding $50M)." By focusing on only one task order, Offerors are currently restricted from presenting their full portfolio of diverse scope relevant experience under an IDIQ contract. Additionally, by attaching the value/magnitude relevance to one task order greatly limits the selection of task order citations. QUESTION: Are single award delivery order contacts allowed to be used as a single past performance reference?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, the Government will allow single-award delivery order contracts, or a combination of Task Orders under a single master contract vehicle, to be submitted as a single past performance reference.

Section M will be amended to read: "Master contract vehicles (e.g., Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs), IDIQ contracts) do not satisfy the Past Performance requirement unless submitted together with a specific Task Order (TO), or a combination of TOs awarded under that single vehicle. If a combination of TOs is submitted as a single reference, the Government will evaluate the aggregate of those combined TOs to determine if they meet the magnitude requirements (more than 200 employees and an aggregate annual value exceeding $50M). The combined TOs must also collectively demonstrate relevancy to this requirement."

5. RFP Section: L-4; 9.2

• Topic or Section Reference: 9.2

• Industry Question/Clarification: Please clarify whether the Government requires contractors submit all CPARS for all relevant years (5 years) or only the most recent CPARS for each citation.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Offerors are only required to submit the most recent CPARS for each citation. Section L has been amended to reflect this instruction.

Please note that in accordance with Section M, the Government reserves the right to consider any CPARS or past performance information in the Government's possession, including records for previous years, when determining relevance and quality of performance.

Section L, Paragraph 9.2 (Past Performance Questionnaire) is amended to add the following instruction:

"The Offeror shall submit only the most recent CPARS evaluation for each past performance reference. Offerors shall not submit the full five-year history of CPARS evaluations for a single past performance reference."

6. RFP Section: L-4.1

• Topic or Section Reference: N/A

• Industry Question/Clarification: Volume I in the Matrix Table Lists the Overview, then Master Table of Contents, then Standard Proposal Information. Question: Is it the government's intent that the volume be organized such that the Overview falls before the Master Table of contents (TOC) and the remaining Standard Proposal Information? Traditionally, any TOCs, Lists, and Glossaries would appear before content to be reviewed to offer the reviewers ease of use to navigate through sections.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, it is the Government's intent that the volume be organized such that the Overview falls before the Master Table of Contents (TOC) and the remaining Standard Proposal Information.

7. RFP Section: L-4.1

• Industry Question/Clarification: 4.1 Matrix Table identifies a "List of Tables and Figures" as part of Standard Proposal Information for each volume. Question: Is it the government's intent that offerors identify Tables and Figures separately? Or can they all be labeled as Exhibits?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, it is the Government's intent that offerors identify Tables and Figures separately. No, Tables and Figures cannot be labeled as Exhibits.

8. RFP Section: L-4.1

• Industry Question/Clarification: 4.1 Matrix Table Section 10: Volume IV Cost/Price Proposal lists "Section 10.1: Standard Proposal Information" however none of the other volumes note that the Standard Proposal Information is included in the Volume's numbered outline. Recommendation: Please remove 10.1 from Standard

Proposal Information and renumber the volume as follows: Section 10.1: Costs;

Section 10.2: Summary Descriptions and Narrative; Section 10.3: Cost Breakout & Supporting Data by COST TYPE CLIN and Utilizing the Cost Model Workbook (RFP Attachment J-7); Section 10.4: Other Information.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. The Government intends to keep it As-Is.

9. RFP Section: L-4; 2.7

• Industry Question/Clarification: Section L 4.2.7 Electronic Copies "Complete electronic copies of all volumes shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document File (.pdf) searchable text format." Question: Please confirm that graphics/illustrations are excluded from the searchable text requirement.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, the Government confirms that graphics/illustrations are excluded from the searchable text requirement.

10. RFP Section: L-4.1

• Industry Question/Clarification: Volume I in the Matrix Table Lists a Master Table of Contents, then Standard Proposal Information with a Table of Contents for this volume. Question: By rule the Master Table of Contents would depict the contents of Volume I. Request the requirement for a Table of Content, separate from the Master Table of Contents for Volume I specifically be removed.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. The Government intends to keep it As-Is.

11. RFP Section: L-4.1

• Industry Question/Clarification: Volume I in the Matrix Table notes that "one copy of the Executive Summary Overview shall be included in all volumes." Question: Is the Government asking for Volume I in its entirety be included within each of the other volumes?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Amendment 0002 reflects that the Executive Summary Overview should only be included in Volume I.

12. RFP Section: N/A

• Industry Question/Clarification: Volume I in the Matrix Table notes that "one copy of the Executive Summary Overview shall be included in all volumes." Question: Will the government please provide the order in which the Executive Summary should appear in each volume?

13. RFP Section: Organizational Chart/Manning Document

• Topic or Section Reference: L-4.2.3 (d)

• Industry Question/Clarification: Section L 4.2.3 (d) states "The proposed Organizational Chart / Manning Document required in the Executive Summary (Volume I) will not count towards individual volume page limitations." Question:

Since the Government is requiring the org chart in an excel file Volume I - Executive Summary will contain two files, the written narrative and the Organizational Chart/Manning Document in Excel. Request the Government confirm that the Excel Organizational Chart is to be included with the Executive Summary Narrative in all volumes?

14. RFP Section: Executive Summary Volume

• Topic or Section Reference: L-4.1

• Industry Question/Clarification: Recommendation: Request the Government remove the requirement to embed Volume I within other volumes. Replicating Volume I content across multiple files materially increases overall file size and elevates the risk of file corruption, instability, or submission failure - particularly in electronic systems with size and handling limitations.

15. RFP Section: L-4.7

• Topic or Section Reference: C.5

• Industry Question/Clarification: Section L-4.7 Volume II - Technical Proposal - USMC requires Offerors shall provide a USMC Technical Proposal describing how the Offeror will achieve MCPP requirements for USMC Supply and Distribution (SOW C.4), USMC Maintenance Management (SOW C.2.4) and USMC Maintenance for activities conducted at MCSF-BI in Jacksonville, FL (SOW C.3); while deployed aboard Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS) (SOW C.7), and at land-based prepositioning sites (SOW C.3, C.4). The Offeror will also provide a section within the USMC Technical Proposal addressing how the Offeror will accomplish MCPP requirements for Medical Materiel and equipment (SOW C.5); however there isn't a designated section for the SOW C.5 requirement similar to the other SOW specifications mentioned. Requirement jumps from SOWs C.3, C.4 to Manning for USMC and Material Management. Question: Request USG reorganize and incorporate SOW C.5 as item 7.4 and provide any associated requirements and change USMC and Medical Materiel Manning as item 7.5 and provide additional page count.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. The question has been considered and the Government's decision is to keep Section L as written.

16. RFP Section: N/A

• Topic or Section Reference: L-4.2.8.1 (d)

• Industry Question/Clarification: Section L-4.2.8.1 (d) states: "No narrow or condensed fonts allowed. Times New Roman or Arial is required. The font size shall be no less than 12 point except for the following... (2) The font shall be no smaller than 10 point for text in tables, charts, graphs, and figures..." Question: Will the government please confirm that font size in the margin area, specifically the page header, footer and paragraph numbering may be smaller than 12 point.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Offeror may use their discretion for the font size in the margin area, specifically the page header, footer, and paragraph numbering.

17. RFP Section: 2.2 Quality Management

• Topic or Section Reference: 2.2

• Industry Question/Clarification: The MCMC shall include these personnel in the PPSP identified in paragraph 2.A.1 of this document. Question: The SOW references paragraph 2.A.1, however there is no paragraph numbered 2.A.1 in the SOW. Please provide the appropriate reference and paragraph number.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Amendment 0002 reflects corrected SOW para. 2.2.

Changed from 2.A.1 to 2.1.1.3.

18. RFP Section: N/A

• Topic or Section Reference: Section C (SOW) 2.1.2.3; and Section J (CDRL List) Exhibit A CDRL #2034

• Industry Question/Clarification: There is a new monthly reporting requirement for an Estimate at Completion Report (EAC). There is not a sample EAC report in Section J- 9 (SOW Attachments). Please provide associated file.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Contractor may utilize its internal corporate format for the required report. The proposed format is subject to written approval by the Government.

19. RFP Section: N/A

• Topic or Section Reference: Section C (SOW) 2.1.2.4; and Section J (CDRL List) Exhibit A CDRL #2035

• Industry Question/Clarification: There is a new monthly reporting requirement for a Program Cost Summary Report. There is not a sample Program Cost Summary report in Section J-9 (SOW Attachments). Please provide associated file.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Contractor may utilize its internal corporate format for the required report, provided all mandatory data fields specified in Section

2.1.2.4 are included. The proposed format is subject to written approval by the Government.

20. RFP Section: H-8.2; Ordering Process

• Industry Question/Clarification: The MCPP II Solicitation includes an indirect rate ceiling clause applicable across the entire 10-year period of performance. Given the unprecedented economic volatility, inflationary pressures, evolving federal workforce policies, and regulatory changes anticipated over the next decade, this requires offerors to a) assume excessive risk that undermines contract performance and/or b) inflate proposed ceiling rates to account for unforeseeable economic conditions, thereby increasing the overall cost to the Government.

Recommendation: Since the Government has built in protections for indirect cost growth based on the nature of the CPFF Term contract type, the indirect rate ceiling clause is not necessary and should be removed from the final MCPP II solicitation.

Alternatively, we recommend the Government consider revising the clause to include a mechanism that allows periodic negotiation or adjustment of indirect rate ceilings at defined intervals (every 2-3 years for example) which would be based on actual rate experience and prevailing economic conditions.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Concur in part. The Government recognizes the risk associated with forecasting indirect rates over a 10-year period of performance.

While the Government requires the stability of indirect rate ceilings for the Base Ordering Period (Years 1-5), the solicitation has been amended to include a redetermination mechanism prior to the exercise of the Optional Ordering Period (Years 6-10). Please see the updated clause G-8 Indirect Cost Rate Ceilings and Option Period Redetermination in Amendment 0002, which outlines the process for negotiating revised ceilings for the Option Period based on actual rate experience and economic conditions.

21. RFP Section: B, (b); Level of Effort - Fee Adjustment Formula

• Industry Question/Clarification: Paragraph (b) of the Level of Effort - Fee Adjustment Formula states that the Offeror should identify uncompensated overtime hours.

Please confirm that if the Offeror didn't bid hours for uncompensated overtime in their rates established in Attachment #J-7, then this paragraph (including its definitions) would not apply.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Non-concur. The requirements of FAR 52.237-10, Identification of Uncompensated Overtime, and the associated Fee Adjustment Formula apply to all proposals. While an Offeror may not intentionally 'bid' uncompensated overtime hours in their Cost Model (Attachment J-7), the Offeror must still disclose if its proposed labor rates are based on a total-work-week accounting system that includes uncompensated overtime.

The Government will evaluate all proposals for cost realism. If an Offeror's proposed rates are found to be unrealistically low due to the use of uncompensated overtime that was not identified, the Government may adjust the Offeror's probable cost of performance accordingly. Offerors must ensure that the accounting practices used to estimate uncompensated overtime for proposal purposes are consistent with their practices for accumulating and reporting these hours in their accounting records.

22. RFP Section: H-16 (4) Avoidance of Organizational Conflicts of Interest

• Industry Question/Clarification: Paragraph (4) uses the term "main supplier".

Question: Can the government please define "main supplier"?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See Amendment 0002 for changes to Para. H-16.

Changed from "main supplier" to "major subcontractor."

23. RFP Section: H-16 (5) c.; Avoidance of Organizational Conflicts of Interest

• Industry Question/Clarification: Is the reference to the MCMC referring to the Prime Offeror?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes. As defined in Section H-1, the Marine Corps Maintenance Contractor (MCMC) refers to the Prime Contractor/Awardee responsible for the performance of this contract. Section H-16 has been updated in Amendment 0002 to ensure consistent use of terminology.

24. RFP Section: Section I - Contract Clauses

• Topic or Section Reference: N/A

• Industry Question/Clarification: Many of the citations listed have an Effective Date of February 2026, which appears to be inconsistent with the Effective Date that is stated in Acquisition.gov. (ex: 52.215-19). Question: Can the government confirm these dates are correct and provide the reference for the location of these clauses in full text?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government acknowledges that the Contract Writing System generated an administrative error, applying a "February 2026" date to several provisions and clauses. The Government will not be manually amending the dates for each individual citation.

In accordance with FAR 52.252-1, Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference, and FAR 52.252-2, Clauses Incorporated by Reference, all provisions and clauses are incorporated with the same force and effect as if given in full text. The authoritative and correct effective date for any incorporated provision or clause is the version published and in effect on the issuance date of this solicitation. Offerors are responsible for accessing the full and accurate text via https://www.acquisition.gov. See additions to Section I of the RFP.

25. RFP Section: L-1

• Industry Question/Clarification: In order to allow Offerors to provide complete and accurate proposals and ensure they have time to adequately review all documents as part of the Program Data and Technical Library, will the government extend the due date for questions to June 5th?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Extended to June 2, 2026, at 10:00 AM Local Time (EDT).

26. RFP Section: N/A

• Topic or Section Reference: (C 3) 3.4.2

• Industry Question/Clarification: SOW states oil testing as a requirement each MMC and states CmdO 4790.1 is the reference. The current CmdO 4790.1 does not https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.acquisition.gov reference oil testing. Question: Request the Government provide oil testing requirement details and update the CmdO 4790.1.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: SOW 3.4.2 has been omitted from the SOW. This change is reflected in Amendment 0002 of the RFP. The requirement for fluid testing to support condition-based maintenance determinations regarding fluid and filter replacement was predicated on the anticipated fielding of the Expeditionary Fluid Analysis System (EFAS). However, due to delays in fielding of the system, the requirement has been removed from the SOW. In lieu of fluid analysis testing, PMCS performed during MMC, to include fluid and filter replacement, shall be executed in accordance with the PMCS levels identified for each TAMCN within enclosure H-1 of Appendix H of the MMSOP, as well as the applicable equipment Technical Manuals

(TM).

27. RFP Section: N/A

• Topic or Section Reference: C.6 Navy

• Industry Question/Clarification: Attachment C.1.2.1.b Navy Watercraft Plan only covers eight years vice the 10 years for the contract. What is the plan for the remaining two years?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: An updated Attachment C.1.2.1.b, which includes the full 10-year Navy Watercraft Plan, will be provided via email to all Offerors who have submitted the required Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) and requested Government Furnished Information (GFI).

28. RFP Section: N/A

• Industry Question/Clarification: As the current Collective Bargaining Agreement is set to expire prior to proposal submittal, will the Government issue the new CBA for incorporation into proposal pricing by ALL Offerors once ratified?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See Section L.4.1.1. The Government will only incorporate a new or revised CBA into the solicitation via amendment if the agreement is fully ratified, signed by both parties, and received by the Contracting Officer in a timely manner as prescribed by FAR 22.1012-2.

If a new CBA is not finalized and received by the Government prior to the 'time of receipt' limitations (typically 10 days before proposal submission for negotiated procurements), Offerors shall base their proposal pricing on the current CBA provided in the solicitation. The successful Offeror will be required to comply with the successor contractor requirements of 41 U.S.C. § 6707(c). Post-award adjustments resulting from a new CBA will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards-Price Adjustment.

29. RFP Section: N/A

• Industry Question/Clarification: Please confirm Offerors are required to bid current CBA rates and benefits in their proposals in order to mitigate possible union disruptions and protests.

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: See Section L.4.1.1. Offerors are required to propose wages and fringe benefits that are consistent with the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) provided in RFP Attachment J-3. In accordance with 41 U.S.C. § 6707(c) and FAR 22.1008-2, a successor contractor must pay at least the wages and fringe benefits established in the predecessor's CBA.

Proposals utilizing labor rates or fringe benefits lower than those mandated by the current CBA will be evaluated as unrealistically low and may be subject to an upward cost realism adjustment in accordance with Section M-5. The Government will not evaluate speculative pricing based on anticipated future negotiations;

however, the successful Offeror remains legally obligated to comply with all applicable labor laws and successor contractor requirements.

30. RFP Section: N/A

• Topic or Section Reference: L-4

• Industry Question/Clarification: Are Offerors permitted to add a supplemental tab to Attachment #7, for explanatory and traceability purposes only, that feeds into the required tabs to demonstrate the application of indirect rates and supporting cost elements?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Concur. Offerors are permitted to add supplemental tabs to Attachment J-7 (Cost Model Workbook) for the purpose of demonstrating traceability, indirect rate application, or internal calculations.

However, the following conditions apply:

1. Integrity of Required Tabs: Offerors must not alter, rename, or delete the Government-provided tabs. All final proposed costs must be clearly populated in the required tabs.

2. Traceability: Supplemental tabs must be clearly labeled, and all formulas linking to the required tabs must be "unlocked" and visible to allow for Government verification.

Conflict: In the event of a conflict between a supplemental tab and the required tabs, the data in the Government-mandated tabs shall take precedence.

31. RFP Section: 6.13.6

• Topic or Section Reference: C.6 Navy 6.13.6

• Industry Question/Clarification: Navy 6.13.6 states, “The MCMC shall validate, and update Integrated Computerized Deployment System (ICODES) deck diagram after backload in conjunction with the Government. The MCMC shall validate the ship’s drawings against the actual as loaded vessel; validations and updates shall be completed prior to the ship’s departure and approved by Port Operations.”

Question: Is the intent to give MCMC access to ICODES for updating and validating embarkation data?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. The MCMC will not have direct access to the ICODES system. The MCMC will validate the load plan by annotating ('redlining') physical deck diagrams during a joint physical vessel walkthrough. The Government/Port Operations will then input those validated updates into the ICODES system.

32. RFP Section: 6.1.1

• Topic or Section Reference: 6.6 Navy

• Industry Question/Clarification: Dedicated Support Exceptions for the Navy do not include Organic Ground Support Equipment (GSE) maintenance or facilities. Does the government intend to have the MCMC provide dedicated facility and GSE maintenance resources for Navy GSE?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The requirement is split. The Government will provide the physical facilities and the organic Ground Support Equipment (GSE) assets. The MCMC is required to provide the dedicated technicians to perform maintenance on those NAV-P organic assets within the Government-provided facilities.

33. RFP Section: Attachment C.6.1.24 MRP

• Industry Question/Clarification: Annual Task Order MRP Category IV Work Item table or INLS: SWI # for work classification does not match SWI # for master item for SWI IN903 and above.

Question: Is this in error?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No, there is no error. Please note that the MRP does not contain 'work classifications' or 'master items'; it utilizes 'Labor Classifications' and serves as an index of the SWIs. The MRP may use abbreviated terms (e.g., for IN903, the MRP states 'Inspect Synthetic Line'), whereas the actual SWI contains the specific equipment (e.g., SWI IN903 states 'Inspect the tow rig', which utilizes synthetic line). The documents align correctly.

34. RFP Section: N/A

• Industry Question/Clarification: Corrective maintenance data for USMC and Navy are absent from the Program Data and Technical Library. Is corrective maintenance data going to be provided for purposes of validating notional resources?

• GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Corrective maintenance (CM) data is currently available within the Program Data and Technical Library. The file titled “GCSS-MC Service Request FY23-FY25” includes historical maintenance data for both Navy and Marine Corps ground equipment. The “Summary” tab depicts the volume of GCSS-MC Service Requests (SRs) by FY and SR type (to include CM), with separate breakouts for Shipboard Operations and MMC production. The “FY23-FY25 SR Data” tab provides detailed information for individual SRs. To obtain SR data specific to CM actions, Column “N” can be filtered by “Maintenance - CM.” To obtain SR data associated with Navy CESE maintenance actions, Column “G” can be filtered by “MMV104.” Due to Navy assets not being accounted for within GCSS-MC in the same manner as Marine Corps equipment, various data fields in Columns E, F, H, J, K, L, and M are not populated for Navy CESE records; however, Equipment Codes (EC) (comparable to TAMCNs) and Serial Numbers are included within the SR Summary field in Column “V.”