Dismounted_Questions_28_June_2013.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- M67854-13-R-2419
- Issued by
-
United States Marine Corps
About this file
Responses to Questions 28 June 2013
View the file
Other files
Show all 26
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
M67854-13-R-2419-Dismounted
| # | Document/Section | Dismounted Page and Paragraph | Question/Concern/Comment | Response | |
| 1 | RFP L-4.2 PAGE COUNT | Page 94 Paragraph CROSS REFERENCE REQUIREMENTS MATRIX WITH STATEMENT OF WORK AND PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION (CROSS REFERENCE REQUIREMENTS MATRIX) | Please provide this format attachment: “The matrix format is included as an attachment to Section L and shall include the proposal page number and the reference to the solicitation requirement that it addresses.” | See Amendment 0002. Matrix is attached to Section L. | |
| 2 | RFP L-5.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION CONTENT | 1. Please provide the referenced Attachment L41 "Past Performance Questionnaire". The attachment was not provided with the RFP. | |||
| 2. Please confirm that gov does not desire we submit these forms ourselves to our Past Performance POCs. | As vendors are not required to provide past performance questionnaires, the reference to the document as an attachment will be deleted. See Amendment 0002.The Past Performance Questionnaire will be used to document information received from sources contacted. This questionnaire is not required to be completed by the offeror. It is information purposes only. | ||||
| 3 | RFP L-5.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION CONTENT | Page 95 Executive Summary, Section 1 | Does the cover letter contents (list of enclosures, CDMA and DCAA offices, ORCA statements) count in the three page limit for the Executive Summary? | Yes, the cover letter contents are included in the three page limit for the Executive Summary. | |
| 4 | RFP L-4.2 PAGE COUNT | Pages 93 and 94 | Instructions in the paragraph state that the page limit for Volume II is 40 pages, while the table states that the limit is 60 pages. Which is correct? | 60. See Amendment 0002. | |
| 5 | RFP L-4.2 PAGE COUNT | Pages 93 and 94 | Section L states that proposals will be evaluated for the offeror's ability to meet or exceed delivery and contract schedules. However, we see no requirement to provide a detailed IMS with the proposal so that this evaluation can be performed effectively. Instructions in the paragraph for Volume III state that it is limited to 5 pages, including the delivery schedule. Is it the Government's intent to perform its evaluation based on a summary level schedule in Volume III showing only major tasks and milestones, or will the Government perform its evaluation using a detailed IMS? Please clarify the level of detail required for the schedule to be delivered with the proposal, and whether an electronic copy of the IMS must also be provided. | Offerors may provide a draft IMS to the Management Volume as an annex. However, a draft IMS is not required. See amendment 0002. | |
| 6 | RFP M-2.4 FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED | Page 114, Factor 5, paragraph 5 | The paragraph states that CLIN 0002 will be evaluated on a previously selected quantity and ordering period. What are the previously selected quantities and ordering periods? | The previously selected quantity will not be known until the Government begins the evaluation process. This quantity and ordering period will be randomly selected and the same quantity and order period will be used to evaluate all price proposals. | |
| 7 | RFP Section B and SOW | CLIN 0001, SOW paragraph 3.4.2 line 527 | CLIN 0001 period of performance states that GAT begins 7 months after award Dismounted while SOW paragraph 3.4.2 states that the contractor shall be prepared to execute GAT 90 days after award. Please clarify which PoP is correct for CLIN 0001. | Section B and the SOW is revised to stated the following: "The Contractor shall be prepared to execute the GAT at their facility, at the earliest, 90 days after contract award if systems are delivered within that timeframe. After 90 days ACA, the Contractor shall be prepared to execute GAT immediately." | |
| 8 | RFP Section B and SOW | RFP page 28 - CLIN 006, SOW paragraph 3.6.4, Line 762 | Section B CLIN 0006 PoP states 60 months, while the SOW paragraph specifies support of production systems for only 12 months. Also, there is no language in the SOW paragraph specifying how many production units the Spare Parts List should be based upon. Please clarify. | PoP is 60 months. | |
| 9 | RFP M-2.4 FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED | Page 112, Factor 1 - Technical, 1st paragraph | Please clarify what the "critical system requirements of this solicitation" are. Are "critical" requirements those listed as "Mandatory" in the table on page 99 (Dismounted) and page 120 (Mounted)? | The word 'critical' has been removed. See Amendment 0002. Page 99 defines requirements. | |
| 10 | RFP L-5.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION CONTENT | Page 97-98, Volume 1, Section 3, Paragraph 4 | The 7th bullet of the paragraph provides instructions to show escalated labor rates for CLINs 0204, 0304, and 0404. We believe this is in error, and that this statement should refer to CLINs 0203, 0303, and 0403. The 8th bullet of the paragraph provides instructions to show escalated labor rates for CLINs 0205, 0305, and 0405. We believe this is in error, and that this statement should refer to CLINs 0204, 0304, and 0404. | The 7th bullet: CLIN 0007, should reflect escalated labor rates for CLINs 0203,0303, and 0403. The 8th bullet: CLIN 0008, should reflect escalated rates for CLINs 0102,0204,0304, and 0404. See Amendment 0002. | |
| 11 | RFP M-2.4 FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED | Page 114, Factor 5, paragraph 5 | The 6th bullet of the paragraph states that CLIN 0006, 0203, 0303, and 0403 will be evaluated by totaling the price of all parts in the list. We believe this is in error, and that this statement only applies to CLIN 0006. The references to CLINs 0203, 0303 and 0403 should be moved to the 7th bullet, associated with CLIN 0007. The references to CLINs 0204, 0304, and 0404 in the 7th bullet should be moved to the 8th bullet, associated with CLIN 0008. The 8th bullet makes reference to CLINs 0205, 0305 and 0405, but there are no such CLINs listed in RFP Section B. | The 6th bullet should only reference CLIN 0006. All other CLINs have been removed in Amendment 0002. | |
| 12 | SOW | Page 27, paragraph 4.0, Line 1050 | Please clarify which CLINs and SOW paragraphs the statement "ALL contractor labor hours" refers to. | Refer to Section 2330a of title 10, United States Code (10 USC 2330a), which requires the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress an annual inventory of contracts for services performed during the prior fiscal year for or on behalf of the Department of Defense (DoD). The inventory must include the number of contractor employees using direct labor hours and associated cost data collected from contractors. The labor CLINs within this RFP are for Engineering Support Services and Maintenance and Repair. | |
| 13 | RFP L-4.2 PAGE COUNT | Page 94 Page Limit Table | This table lists two Technical Annexes for Test Data and Analysis, one Classified and one Unclassified. Please clarify the number of Test Data and Analysis annexes. | Two annexes, one classified and one unclassified. | |
| 14 | CLIN 001, RFP Section B, SOW 3.4.2 | CLIN 0001, SOW paragraph 3.4.2 line 527 | Section B states orders may not be placed until the acceptable completion of GAT. CLIN 001 describes GAT support over a 5 month period dismounted and SOW 3.4.2 specifies, "Within 180 calendar days after the Government receives the initial systems, the Contraction Officer shall notify the Contractor, in writing, of the results of GAT." May we assume this to mean orders may not be placed until the completion of GAT which will not exceed 180 days (6 months)? | Notification of successful completion of GAT will be accomplished within 180 days. | |
| 15 | RFP Section M | Page 114, Factor 5, paragraph 5 | In the section describing TEP you state CLINs 007, 024, 0304, and 0404 will be evaluated "based on [y]our estimate of what [you] thing [you] will order over a 5 year period." How will that amount be determined,? And how will the number of contract actions be the same across each vendor, or is the amount offer dependent? | The total FFP will be based on the total labor proposed for the scenarios (see attachments in section L.) multiplied by a pre-determined factor based on the Governments estimate of what we think may order over a five year period (including shipping cost). | |
| 16 | SOW 3.3.3 | SOW pg 12 Line 421 | SOW states up to four threat load updates per year. This is to be priced in FFP CLINs. What number of new threats and threat complexity should we use to base this price? | The identity, quantity, and complexity of new threats are unknown. The development of threat loads may consist of a combination of known threat responses repackaged into a custom threat load or the development of a new threat with counteract techniques incorporated into a new threat load delivery. | |
| 17 | SOW | Paragraph 3.2.2.3, Page 7, line 220 | The paragraph states that TIMs will be scheduled "as required" by the Government. How many TIMs per year should Offerors plan for? | TIMs are intended for initial information sharing and resolving issues. The Government estimates ten (10) TIMs for the duration of this contract." | |
| 18 | Solicitation Document: RFP | Page 90 of 115; Delivery |
| Note that proposals must be in the possession of the point of contact listed below with the delivery address by the time and date listed below. Offerors are advised that proposals sent by conventional U.S. Mail service are not routed directly to the delivery address listed below. Therefore, the possibility that a proposal will not comply with the stated closing date/time exists; in such case the proposal will be considered a “late submission.” Late submissions will be treated in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c). All packages shall be clearly marked and shall include the solicitation number. | Can you provide a specific number of days we would need to have the classified package arrive to plan for the receiving, processing, and final delivery to the point of contact if conventional U.S. Mail services are used for the classified packages? | Package must be received by the due date/time of proposal submission per the RFP. | |
| 19 | Solicitation Document: RFP | Page 90 of 115; Delivery |
| Note that proposals must be in the possession of the point of contact listed below with the delivery address by the time and date listed below. Offerors are advised that proposals sent by conventional U.S. Mail service are not routed directly to the delivery address listed below. Therefore, the possibility that a proposal will not comply with the stated closing date/time exists; in such case the proposal will be considered a “late submission.” Late submissions will be treated in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c). All packages shall be clearly marked and shall include the solicitation number. | How can the U.S. Government hold offerors accountable for a process we have no control over once our packages arrive to the address provided, ensuring the package is delivered to the Point of Contact? | Package must be received by the due date/time of proposal submission per the RFP. | |
| 20 | Solicitation Document: RFP | Page 93 of 15; Section L-4.2 PAGE COUNT |
| The page count for Volume IV is limited to 15 pages, exclusive of title pages, tables of contents, tabbed index divider pages, acronym list, and glossaries. | Based on Section L of the RFP and SOW requirements, we request for your consideration to increase the Management Plan to 20 pages. | See Amendment 0002 that reflects the Management Plan updated to reflect 20 pages. | |
| 21 | Solicitation Document: RFP | Page 94 of 15; Section Cross Reference Requirements Matrix With Statement Of Work And Performance Specification (Cross Reference Requirements Matrix) |
| The offeror shall provide a matrix within each volume (not required for Past Performance) that cross references the proposal with the Statement of Work (SOW) and System Performance Specification, demonstrating that the proposal addresses the stated capabilities required. It shall be placed at the front of each of the volumes, will be evaluated, and will not count towards the page limitation. The matrix format is included as an attachment to Section L and shall include the proposal page number and the reference to the solicitation requirement that it addresses. | We could not locate the matrix format attachment as mentioned in the RFP document. | See amendment 0002. Matrix is attached to Section L. | |
| 22 | Solicitation Document: RFP | Page 95 of 115; L-5.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION CONTENT, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, SECTION 2 – SOLICITATION AMENDMENTS |
The offeror shall acknowledge all Amendments to the solicitation (as applicable).
Page 96 of 115; VOLUME I- MODEL CONTRACT- SECTIONS A-K AND PRICING, Section 1 – Signed SF 33
| The model contract shall include a completed, signed original copy of the entire solicitation (Sections A through K), to include one signed and completed copy of the Standard Form 33, acknowledging all solicitation amendments, signed by a person authorized to enter into the proposed contract on behalf of the Offeror with all appropriate “fill-ins” completed. Blocks 12, 17 a, 30 a, b, and c must be filled out in their entirety. | The RFP documents request the solicitation amendments be incorporated in both the Executive Summary and in Volume I-Model Contract-Sections A-K and Pricing. Can you please clarify the location the amendment documents should be incorporated? | The amendment documents should be included in Section 2 of the Executive Summary and Section 1 of Volume I. | |||
| 23 | Solicitation Document: RFP | Page 92 of 115; DUE DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF OFFEROR QUESTIONS: 2:00PM Local time on 11 JUNE 2013 | Will the Government provide an extension for the submission for questions for the Classified Section as the Classified documents have not been received? | Not at this time. | |
| 24 | Section L | Pages 98 Volume II – Technical - System Requirements | Section L states the following: "Mandatory requirements must be met in order to be considered for contract award". Can the Government please clarify, does this mean that to be considered for contract award that both the mandatory threshold and mandatory objective requirements are met? | Threshold, represents the required value, and an objective, represents the desired value. | |
| 25 | Section L, and SOW | RFP Page 118, pricing instruction for CLINs 0005, 0202, 0302 and 0402; and SOW paragraph 3.6.6.2 | Neither Section L instructions or the SOW specify how many training sessions the Contractor is expected to support per year under FFP. Please clarify. | We are asking for Operator training pricing and pricing for Maintainer training. The pricing should be a FFP per class. As this is an IDIQ, we would have the option to order any number of classes at the proposed price. | |
| 26 | CDRL A022 | Block 5 of the CDRL references SOW 3.3.6. We believe that this should be SOW 3.3.7. Please confirm | Yes, CDRL Updated. See updated SOW (Amendment 0002). | ||
| 27 | CDRL A022 | Block 12, Date of 1st Submission refers to Block 16, which is silent on the issue. Please provide a submittal date. | Yes, CDRL Updated. See updated SOW (Amendment 0002). | ||
| 28 | CDRL A030 | Block 4 references OT-13-20071 as the authorizing document. We have been unable to locate a copy. Please provide a copy. | Copy provided. See Amendment 0003. | ||
| 29 | CDRL A031 | Block 4 references OT-13-20077 as the authorizing document. We have been unable to locate a copy. Please provide a copy. | Copy provided. See Amendment 0003. | ||
| 30 | Performance Specification | Is the contractor expected to satisfy section 3.3.5.1 with the detailed data present in section 6.1.7 in order to satisfy section 3.5.3.1.3? The contractor believes that 6.1.7 is informational only, but there seems to be a hint that it is required. Please clarify that the data in section 6.1.7 is a suggestion and that the contractor may utilize other combinations that may better operationally satisfy section 3.3.5.1. | Section 6.1.7 is information only. | ||
| 31 | Performance Specification | Are external high-power RF filters that are independent of the main unit counted as independent modules or counted in the system volume calculations? | See Performance Specification paragraph 6.1.2.1. | ||
| 32 | Performance Specification | How is the system volume defined; displacement, extents without connectors, or extents with connectors? | See Performance Specification paragraph 6.1.2.1. | ||
| 33 | Performance Specification | Does the Developer GUI have RBAC? If so, is it RBAC in the Administrator mode or Maintainer mode? | Yes. The RBAC would be in administrator mode. If the Developer GUI is multipurpose, it should contain the RBAC. | ||
| 34 | CDRLs | A017 | The text in Block 16 for CDRL A017 (Human Readable Threat Load Materials) contains duplicate instructions for Blocks 12 and 13. These provide instructions for Contractors to provide an SVD rather than Threat Load Materials. Please provide the correct instructions for Blocks 12 and 13 for CDRL A017. | CDRL corrected to delete duplication information. | |
| 35 | SOW | Page 8, paragraph 3.2.5.1, Line 252 | The paragraph states that risks shall be evaluated as to their impact on Cost, in addition to schedule and performance. Given that nearly all CLINs for this procurement are FFP, it does not make sense that Contractor risks that address costs should be reported to the government. We suggest removal of the word "Cost" from the paragraph. | Non-concur. The type of contract vehicle is not a risk criteria for the CREW MEU(SOC). | |
| 36 | CDRLs | A049 | Per DID DI –ADMN-81306: “This plan outlines and defines contractor’s implementation of the Government developed Program Protection Plan (PPP)”. Please provide the Government developed PPP, or please cite the document reference number and source. | The PPP is to be developed by the Government. Useful references: |
1) DoD Directive 5200.39, 9/10/97 2) SECNAVINST 5000.2C, 11/19/04 3) DoD Instruction 5000.2, 05/12/2003
| 37 | RFP L-5.0, | ||||
| and P-SPEC | RFP page 101, Volume III Preparation Instructions - Operational Availability; and P-SPEC paragraph 3.8.1 | In order to calculate expected Operational Availability, the Mean Logistics Delay Time expected in the filed is needed. Please provide the typical Mean Logistics Delay Time for both peace time and war operations. | Page 37 of the p-spec at the bottom of the page, note 37 states "(U/FOUO)To determine Ao, a zero Mean Logistics Delay Time (MLDT) can be used" This applies to both please and war time. | ||
| 38 | RFP M-2.3 RATING SYSTEM, and M-2.4 FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED | Page 110, Factors I-III Rating Definitions, and Page 112, Factor 1 - Technical, 1st paragraph | Please clarify the technical rating criteria for Mandatory/Objective versus Optional/Threshold and Optional/Objective requirements (i.e., do these have equal importance to the Government, or do they have differing weight and importance?). | See amendment 0002. | |
| 39 | RFP M-2.4 FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED, and SOW | RFP Page 112, Factor 2 - Manufacturing Capability, 1st paragraph; SOW Page 17, paragraph 3.5.1 | Please clarify when an offeror must demonstrate MRL-8. Does the offering need to be assessed at MRL-8 as of the award of the contract, or as of the start of award of Delivery Orders against CLIN 0002? | The offerors will be assessed as part of the solicitation response, and activities identified in the SOW. | |
| 40 | RFP L-5.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION CONTENT | Page 97, Section 3 - Pricing Support, Paragraphs 3 and 4. | Do all CDRL sub-CLINs need to be priced separately, or may some CDRL sub-CLINs be combined (bundled) and priced together? | CDRLs shall be separately priced. | |
| 41 | Contract/Section B | Page 53 Paragraph B.2 Fair Opportunity Procedures | How does CLIN 0002 step ladder unit pricing apply relative to the Fair Opportunity Procedure? Does it represent NTE unit pricing? | Step Ladder pricing does not pertain to fair opportunity, this is only a pricing technique based on the quantity to be ordered. Fair Opportunity procedures refer to ordering future delivery order (i.e. follow on production delivery order) | |
| 42 | Contract/Section F | Page 59 FAR clause 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages | Does this clause apply only to the CLIN 0002 Production Systems? | Clause is not applicable to this solicitation. | |
| 43 | Contract/Section F | Page 59 FAR clause 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages | What is the amount of liquidated damages per calendar day of delay? | Clause is not applicable to this solicitation. | |
| 44 | Contract/Section F | Page 59 FAR clause 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages | Will the Government consider amending the RFP to add Performance Incentives for early delivery? | Clause is not applicable to this solicitation. | |
| 45 | Contract/Section I | Page 67 FAR clause 52.216-24 Limitation of Government Liability | FAR 16.603-4 (b)(2), seems to indicate that this clause should be used in solicitations and contracts when a letter contract is contemplated. Can the Government please review and advise regarding applicability? | Clause is not applicable to this solicitation. | |
| 46 | Contract/Section I | Page 68 FAR Payment | Will the Government consider adding FAR 52.232-32 -- Performance-Based Payments or FAR 52.232-16 Progress Payments to the solicitation? | FAR Clause 52.232-16 has been incorporated into the solicitation see amendment 0003. | |
| 47 | Contract/Section I | Page 68 FAR Limitation of Liability | FAR 46.805 seems to indicate standard Limitation of Liability clause(s) are applicable to this solicitation. Can the Government please review and advise regarding applicability of FAR clauses 52.246-23, 52.246-24 and 52.246-25? Offeror expected to see these clauses included. | Clauses are not applicable. | |
| 48 | RFP/Section L | General | For evaluation purposes, what is the assumed contract award date? | Anticipated award date is between the 1st and 2nd Quarter of FY14 | |
| 49 | RFP/Section M | Page 114 Paragraph 5 | Section M states that CLIN 0002 will be evaluated on a previously selected quantity and ordering period, consistently in evaluation of all price proposals. Can the Government please clarify? How does this relate to schedule requirement is Section L page 124 of "Production Systems: 150 systems within 12 months ARO"? | The evaluation technique identified in Section M is not related to the schedule requirement in Section L. Please see response to Question #6 for further clarification on selected quantity. | |
| 50 | SOW | Page 21, paragraph 3.6.6 - Training Program | Does the government have a list of events for which they want training provided, prior to the event (e.g., M-DEMO, etc.). | SOW has been modified to support training for M-DEMO. | |
| 51 | CDRLs | A019 - Human Engineering Systems Analysis Report | Does the Government plan to provide a top down functional analysis (TDFA) for operators, maintainers, and support personnel as part of the solicitation? If not when can it be expected? | No, the contractor will conduct the functional analysis in preparation of CDRLs A028 and A029. | |
| 52 | SOW & CDRLs | Page 18, paragraph 3.6, |
A028 - OPERATOR JOB TASK LIST (JTL), and
| A029 - MAINTENANCE JOB TASK LIST (MTL) | The DID cited in the CDRLs is a general management report with no detailed directions. SOW paragraph 3.6 is a general supportability and levels of maintenance description. Is there any further guidance available for CDRL A028 and A029 content? | The JTL and MTL will serve as the foundation to ensure all operations, system administrations and maintenance tasks are defined in appropriate manuals, training materials and system support packages. MIL-STD-46855A, Human Engineering Requirements for Military Systems, Equipment and Facilities provides guidance for defining required tasks. | |
| 53 | SOW & CDRLs | Page 19, paragraph 3.6.3, | |
| A032 - LOGISTICS PRODUCT DATA SUMMARIES | Are CDRL A032 summaries to be detailed at the Operator and Unit/Field maintenance level, or also to include Depot maintenance? | CDRL A032 targets unit/field LRU/SRU data for the Provisioning Effort. | |
| 54 | SOW & CDRLs | Page 20, paragraph 3.6.5, |
A035 - OPERATOR TECHNICAL MANUAL,
A036 – FIELD MAINTENANCE TECHNICAL MANUAL,
A037 – QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE Paragraph 3.6.5 states that CDRLs A035, A036 and A037 and any supplemental data are to be COTS/NDI, but the CDRL instructions state that all are to be approved by the Government for technical content. Does the approval requirement also include validation of the manuals and supplemental data? If so, it seems to be inconsistent with the COTS/NDI qualifier as stated in the SOW. Please confirm that approval is required, and clarify whether government validation of the materials is required. Government requires ensurance that manual align with Job Task and Maintenance tasks for system operation and maintenance.
All Manuals shall be validated by the Contractor per SOW 3.6.5.1. Government will perform verification per SOW 3.6.5.2.
55 SOW/Sections 3.1.1 and 3.6.7 SOW Pages 5 & 23 Section 3.1.1 states that "Items shall include a standard commercial warranty" and Section 3.6.7 makes reference to "Warranty applicability". Offeror notes the model contract does not incorporate any of the standard FAR warranty clauses 52.246-17, 52.246-18, 52.246-19 or 52.246-20. Will the Government please clarify the intent of the SOW warranty related references? Government expects a standard commercial warranty. Warranty applicability referenced in SOW 3.6.7 refers to the item being repaired to determine is covered under warranty or not.
56 Section L and the PSPEC Pages 98-100 Volume II – Technical - System Requirements Section L states the following: "System requirements are divided in to two sections: mandatory and optional. Mandatory requirements must be met in order to be considered for contract award. Optional requirements will be evaluated as part of the best value determination. A matrix of mandatory and optional requirements with respect to the PSPEC is included below."
There are various references in the PSPEC to Threshold and Objective requirements in the sections marked as "Mandatory" in the table beginning on page 120. For example, Threat Suppression. Can the Government please clarify what Mandatory means in instances where both Threshold and Objective requirements are specified in PSPEC for a particular requirement?
| Threshold, represents the required value, and an objective represents the desired value. | ||||
| 57 | SOW & CDRL | Page 26, Paragraph 3.7.1, and CDRL A050 | SOW paragraph 3.7.1 contains language regarding performance of V&V testing. CDRL A050 is the report associated with that testing. We believe that SOW paragraph 3.7.1 should also contain appropriate language regarding preparation and delivery of CDRL A050 as well as A047, A048, and A049. Please clarify or provide corrected language. | SOW changes have been made. See amendment 0002. |
M67854-13-R-2419-Dismounted
&P
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .