PATS_Industry_QAs.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- M67854-15-R-4801
- Issued by
-
United States Marine Corps
About this file
PATS Q As
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
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
15-R-4801 QA's
| QUESTIONS & ANSWERS FOR SOLICITATION M67854-15-R-4801 (PATS) | |||||
| SOLICITATION SECTION | DOCUMENT/PAGE/PARAGRAPH/ | ||||
| LINE NUMBER | VENDOR QUESTION | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE | |||
| 1 | RFP | RFP/22/ | The explanation of FAR 52.212-2 says “the following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: See Addendum 1 to Evaluation Plan” yet there is no Evaluation Plan and there is no Addendum 1. Please clarify this reference. | Addendum 1 to Eval Plan is located right below FAR clause 52.212-2. Starts on Page 21 and ends on Page 36. | |
| 2 | RFP | RFP/22 | Under the explanation of FAR 52.212-2 (b) discusses “adding the total price for all options to the total price for the base requirement.” But, there are no options associated with this solicitation. Please clarify how total price will be evaluated. | This is the standard language in the FAR clause. Page 35, paragraph 1 of the RFP states: "Price will be calculated by adding up the total Task Order price for each SLIN (or CLIN if no SLINs) and ODCs/Travel. Next, only the lowest priced proposal will be evaluated for Technical Approach and Past Performance." | |
| 3 | RFP | Instruction to Offerors/25/4.a.i | The description of Section 1 of the Technical Volume requires the bidder state that they ACKNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTAND AND SHALL PERFORM a list of PWS tasks. But, several of the PWS tasks are not included in this list (e.g. 4.2.1 thru 4.2.9), please clarify. | The remaining PWS tasks are noted under 4a)ii), which states: "Within a 35 page limit, provide a technical approach in accordance with Exhibit C and D (Task Order Matrix and Task Order PWS) which demonstrates the offeror’s ability to meet the table of critical items in Figure 1 below." (See pages 25-27). | |
| 4 | RFP | Instruction to Offerors/29/4.b.ii | The instructions for Section 2 – Customer Assessments places a “One Page Limit per customer assessment” but the Past Performance Questionnaire is a five page template. Would the Government please remove the One Page limit? | The instructions state: "The Offeror shall submit with its proposal a list of the customer POCs (with contact information to include phone number and email address) that received a Past Performance Questionnaire." The past performance questionnaire is not submitted as part of the customer assessment; therefore, the page limit of one page per customer assessment is appropriate. | |
| 5 | RFP | Instruction to Offerors/31/4.c.iii | The bold text on this page states “Labor rates are fixed for all contract year periods” yet no such periods are defined in the RFP. From the structure of the solicitation it appears the resulting IDIQ is a single 45 month period. Please clarify the use of contract year periods. | The ordering period has been incorporated in Attachment 1, Base ID/IQ PWS and Exhibit D, TO PWS. The base ID/IQ is for 4 years and 10 months with the first ordering period a length of 10 months. | |
| 6 | RFP | Instruction to Offerors/33/4.d.ii | The directions regarding Section Two – Compensation Plan do not specify how to deal with subcontractor data. The data the Government requests is highly company proprietary and is normally provided through a separate submission directly to the government. Please provide a mechanism to protect subcontractor data and direction on how to deal with this within the stated page limit. | Subcontractors may submit their Compensation Plans directly to the Contract Specialist using the MCSC_ISI@usmc.mil email address. | |
| 7 | RFP | Evaluation Criteria/36/ | This section on Past Performance Evaluation states that an Offerer without a record of Past Performance will be given a Neutral rating. But, under the Instruction to Offerers, Volume 2, Section 1 requires that the prime Offerer submit two past performance citations as a prime. Wouldn’t a failure to do so result in a non-compliant proposal not a Neutral rating? Please clarify how an Offerer can be given a Neutral rating and still be compliant. | As stated in the table on page 36 of the RFP, Neutral is defined as follows: "In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance and for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have a neutral past performance rating." | |
| 8 | RFP | FAR Clauses/58/ | In the text for 52.216-22 INDEFINITE QUANTITY (OCT 1995) (a) it refers to “the Schedule” but no such Schedule appears to be provided. Please clarify what Schedule this refers to. | The schedule refers to the CLIN schedule listed in the RFP. | |
| 9 | Exhibit D to PWS | TO PWS//3.5/100 | This section contains the first of many references to CDRLs, yet the RFP does not contain any CDRL definitions. Please clarify. | CDRLs are not noted in the RFP. The Government is requesting actual deliverables. | |
| 10 | RFP | SF1449/Page 4/Para. 1 | CLIN 0003 references Exhibit C. Exhibit C does not include a CLIN 0003. Is there supposed to be a CLIN 0003 on Exhibit C? | No, CLIN 0003 is not included in Exhibit C. The description for CLIN 0003 has been updatedin Amendment 0001 and the reference to Exhibit C has been removed. | |
| 11 | RFP | SF1449/Page 4/Para. 2 | CLIN 0004 references Exhibit C. Exhibit C does not include a CLIN 0004. Is there supposed to be a CLIN 0004 on Exhibit C? | CLIN 0004 is an information CLIN only. No, there is no CLIN 0004 on Exhibit C, but there are SLINs under this Informaton CLIN on Exhibit C. The description for CLIN 0004 has been updated in Amendment 0001 and the reference to Exhibit C has been removed. | |
| 12 | RFP | SF1449/Page 6/Para. 1 | CLIN 0004AC on the SF1449 is titled MOS-MCTIMS. CLIN 0004AC on Exhibit C is titled MMAS. Please Clarify? | The SF1449 has been updated to match Exhibit C. See Amendment 0001 and updated Exhibit C. | |
| 13 | RFP | SF1449/Page 9/Para. 2 | CLIN 0004AK on the SF 1449 is titled MOS-SPS. On Exhibit C, there is no MOS-SPS, but there is SPS listed as CLIN 0005AG. Please clarify? | The SF1449 has been updated to match Exhibit C. See Amendment 0001 and updated Exhibit C. | |
| 14 | PATS Task Order | Exhibit C | Some of the programs marked in blue on Exhibit C are not listed in the SF1449 even though Exhibit C has work identified for them. In particular, DCIPS and the IT Roadmap are not listed. Will the government be revising either Exhibit C or the SF1449? | The SF1449 has been updated to match Exhibit C. See Amendment 0001 and updated Exhibit C. | |
| 15 | RFP | SF1449/Page 4/Para. 1 | CLIN 0003 requests a firm-fixed-price for travel per Exhibit D. Exhibit D line 430 lists two trips to Kansas City, Missouri of four days each. Please define the number of travelers, the expected days of the week for travel, and the anticipated advanced notice of travel. | It is expected to only be one traveler each trip with travel being conducted during the workweek with at least 10 working days notice. See updated Exhibit D, TO PWS. | |
| 16 | RFP | SF1449/Page 24/Para. 1 | Paragraph 1 instructs offerors to submit in MS Office 2003 or newer format. Paragraph c states that the submission should be MS Office 2007 or PDF. What is the desired form of submission? | Microsoft (MS) Office 2007 format and/or PDF. See Amendment 0001. | |
| 17 | RFP | SF1449/Page 25 | The evaluation criteria states that the compensation plans will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. This FAR clause is not included in the list of incorporated FAR clauses on page 19 nor does it appear to have been incorporated by full text. Please clarify? | FAR 52.222-46 has been incorporated on Amendment 0001. | |
| 18 | BASE PWS | Attachment 1/Line 30 | The PWS states that the contractor should be prepared to support two to three new programs each year. Will a modification or new task order be issued for the added programs? | This will be accomplished through a new task order. | |
| 19 | RFP | Compensation Plan/pg 33 | If this is a requirement, recommend submission of this type of confidential information be contained in the Pricing Volume vice Technical Volume. Please clarify. | This submission is requested under Volume 4 - Model Contract/Representations & Certifications Volume, not Volume 3, Pricing Volume. | |
| 20 | RFP | SF1449/Page 23/Para. ~11 | The Intent to Bid is required the next business day following the issuance of RFC responses. Should the offerors interpret this to mean after the issuance of complete RFC responses that address all RFCs? In the event the government does not address all RFCs, what date should be used? | The Intent to Bid language has been updated to the following: "provide by 10:00 A.M. (local time, Quantico, VA), on the next business day following issuance of the first set of RFC responses, an email notification of your intent to bid." | |
| 21 | BASE PWS | Attachment 1/Line 122 | When the PWS states that the "Contractor shall organize and attend…" meetings, should this be interpreted as a requirement to provide meeting hosting facilities? | The Government is not authorized to procure contractor conference facilities though this contract. As part of "organizing", it is desired that the contractor not only identify where the meetings will be conducted, but also coordinate the meetings in such a manner as to allow maximum attendance by IPT members. The Government has very limited meeting facilities and, historically, contractors have held a large number of meetings in either their own, a partner's, or the sytem integrator's facilities. | |
| 22 | BASE PWS | Attachment 1/Line 235 | Paragraph 4.1.18 states that the Contractor shall "…prepare additional required Project artifacts…". In order to estimate the level of effort required for this task, the offerors will need to know what additional artifacts, and in what quantity, are required. What additional artifacts are required? What are the quantities of those artifacts? | The number and types of artifacts that may be required in the future is unknown. The level of effort should all fall within the provided historical staffing capabilities in Exhibit E. This support level is intended to support routine operations. If the level of effort exceeds historical estimates or if major new artifacts are required, a modification clarifying the task will be coordinated with the contractor. | |
| 23 | BASE PWS | Attachment 1/Line 244 | Paragraph 4.2.1 states that the Contractor shall review and comment on System Integrator deliverables on a monthly basis. Please characterize these deliverables by providing the type and quantity of each. | The tasks provided in the PWS are intended to indicate the type of work that the contractor shall perform; however, contractor pricing should be focused at the Project Level and based on the historical support estimates (Exhibit E). The number and complexity of deliverables will vary depending on the complexity of the project and status of the development efforts. The contractor will be expected to flex their support within their proposed staffing. | |
| 24 | BASE PWS | Attachment 1/Line 278 | Paragraph 4.2.7 states that the Contractor shall maintain schedules in a government provided Project 2013 Server. Will the government be providing the required software licenses to the Contractor? Will the Contractor be required to perform any administration of the Project 2013 Server? Will access to the Project 2013 Server be permitted from the Contractor's facility? | The contractor must provide their own licenses for MS Project 2013 Professional. No Project Server administration is anticipated under this task order. The contractor will be allowed access to the Government Project server from a specified fixed IP Address coordinated thought the Project Server Hosting agency. | |
| 25 | Instructions to Offerors; | Solicitation / Page 29, Paragraph 2 | Solicitation states, * Relevant is defined as efforts worth at least $2M/year, with similar size, scope, complexity. Considering the SB size standards for prime vendors to bid this effort, we believe the 2M/year requirement for Past Performance is too high for SB bidders to qualify. Would the government considering relaxing the requirements with a lower dollar value or removing it altogether? | The size standard for the NAICS code selected was $27.5 million. That means $27.5M in average annual receipts. $2M is a realistic amount based on the anticipated award amount and historical performance provided and well within the bounds of the NAICS code selected. | |
| 26 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 2-Past Performance Volume;
i) Section One-Recent and Relevant Past Performance
| Solicitation / Page 29, Paragraph 2 | The solicitations states relevant/recent Department of Defense DOD Contracts/task orders and/or subcontracts. Would the Government accept Department of Homeland Security efforts as relevant? Will the Government accept U.S. Coast Guard contracts/task orders as relevant? | Yes. The Past Performance section has been updated. See Amendment 0001. Relevant/recent Federal, commercial or other customers' past performance will be accepted. |
| 27 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 3-Pricing Volume;
i) Section One, A
| Solicitation/Page 30 | The Government is asking for separate lines in a T&M listing of labor category rates. Typically multi-year FFP contracts that use T&M rates for ceilings, the rates incorporated into the contract are to be used for the entire team. Having rates only for the company providing the specific category reduces flexibility as contract personnel turnover which inevitably occurs. This increases contract risk. Will the Government allow a single set of rates for the entire team (Prime and Subcontractors)? | The Government is not requesting T&M rates. This is FFP contract. Rates are requested for both the Prime and any Subcontractors. |
| 28 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 4-Model Contract;
i) Section One, G
| Solicitation page 33 | The Government is requiring that Offerors provide financial statements covering the organizations which will be performing the contract. Will the Government confirm how many years of financial statements are wanted from the Prime and how many from each Subcontractor? | Page 33 of the RFP has been updated as follows: "Submit copies of your latest available financial statement covering the organization(s), which will perform the contract. Multiple years of financial statements are not required or requested." |
| 29 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 4-Model Contract) Section Two, B;
| Solicitation page 33 | The Solicitation says the Government wants fringe benefits to be presented both as “an hourly rate as well as an itemized list”. Will the Government clarify if they want 1) The total fringe paid by the Offeror presented as a rate per hour and an itemized list of the components to fringe? Or 2) An itemized list of all benefits contained in the Fringe with the associated cost presented in an hourly rate. | The Government requests 1) The total fringe paid by the Offeror presented as a rate per hour and an itemized list of the components to fringe. |
| 30 | Instructions to Offerors; |
#4 Instructions for Content;
b) Volume 4-Model Contract;
i) Section Two, B
| Solicitation page 33 | Will the Government confirm or provide how they want the hourly rate calculated, so that Offerors are providing the same calculated rates for evaluation? | The Government wants the fully burdened rate; specific break out is not required for price. However, the Government requires additional information when proposing compensation. Please see answer to Question #29. |
| 31 | Evaluation Criteria |
Applicable to the Compensation Plan
| Solicitation page 34 | The Government indicates that the evaluation criteria for the Professional Compensation Plan will be Pass/Fail. Will the Government provide some clarity as to what minimum criteria must be me to receive a pass and what criteria would cause a failure? | As stated on page 34 of the RFP: "An Acceptable Plan provides compensation levels that demonstrate a clear understanding of the work to be performed and indicates the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives and to meet the requirements of the solicitation." |
| 32 | Evaluation Criteria |
Applicable to Past Performance
| Solicitation page 35 | The Government indicates that non-DOD examples submitted will be reviewed as not relevant. In the next paragraph, the Government indicates that they reserve the right to use other sources to include Federal, State and local Government Agencies. Will the Government accept non-DOD past performance references if they relate to the work being performed under this solicitation? | The Past Performance section has been updated. See Page 35 of the RFP. Relevant/recent Federal, commercial or other customers' past performance will be accepted. | |
| 33 | INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS | 28 of 64 | Reference: 4.a.iv) Section Four - No Page Limit. Provide a Cross reference matrix for Section Two of the technical proposal that specifically maps requirements of the solicitation |
to page and line number(s) of the proposal.
Question: Can offerors map Solicitation to Proposal by page and paragraph numbers instead of line numbers?
| No, the Government will not update the instructions. | |||
| 34 | Exhibit E (Historical LOE) | PATS Tab | Reference: FTE Historicals count has 16.00 in cell A8. The FTE count in cells B5:B7 add up to 17. |
Question: Just for clarification, the FTE count should be 17 vice 16 in cell B8, correct?
| 17 is correct. See updated Exhibit E. | |||
| 35 | INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS | 26 of 64 | Reference: 4.a.ii) |
Within a 35 page limit, provide a technical approach in accordance with Exhibit C and D (Task Order Matrix and Task Order PWS) which demonstrates the offeror’s ability to meet the table of critical items in Figure 1 below.
Question: 4.a.ii) says to write the section in accordance with Exhibit D the TO PWS, but Figure 1 refers to paragraph 4.1.11, which is in the ID/IQ PWS. Is section ii to describe TO or ID/IQ approach? There is no financial requirement in the TO PWS
| 4.1.11 has been removed as a critical item on the Task Order and added to the overall technical approach statement. See Amendment 0001 and updated Exhibit A Evaluation Criterial Checklist. | |||
| 36 | INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS | 33 of 64 | Reference: 4.d.ii) Section Two - Compensation Plan. 15 Page limit. The Offeror shall submit a total compensation plan setting forth: |
A. proposed salaries (i.e. non burdened hourly rates) for each of the labor categories proposed within the pricing volume;
B. fringe benefits provided in both an hourly rate as well as an itemized list of benefits;
C. fully burdened hourly rates (these should match exactly the burdened rated provided in Volume III);
D. supporting documentation of sufficient compensation, to include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public, and private organizations used in establishing the total compensation structure.
Question: Will subcontractors/teammates also submit this data directly to the Government in accordance with Section Two - Compensation Plan requirements or is this only a requirement for the Prime?
| Subcontractors may submit their Compensation Plans directly to the Contract Specialist using the MCSC_ISI@usmc.mil email address. | |||
| 37 | Exhibit D Task Order Performance Work Statement | Page 3, para 3.6 | Reference. All Contractor personnel supporting this contract will be required to sign and submit a U.S. MARINE CORPS SUPPORT CONTRACTOR NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT (INDIVIDUAL) and may be ineligible to compete in future associated project support contracts |
Question. Please explain ineligibility criteria.
Paragraph has been updated to reflect system integration contracts vice project support contracts. In addition, see the OCI section on page 36 of the RFP. See updated Exhibit D, TO PWS and Attachment 1, Base ID/IQ PWS.
38 Exhibit D Task Order Performance Work Statement Page 6, para 4.2.5 Reference. The Contractor shall obtain and maintain access to Architecture Compliance and Requirements Traceability Tool, as well as update each Project record annually.
Question. Will an NMCI machine be required to access ACART? If so, will it be provided?
| The Government maintains several Kiosk machines in the QCC building which can be used to access applications which limit access from within the Government network or from a Government owned asset. There is no plan at this time to issue Government computer assets to the vendor. | |||
| 39 | Exhibit D Task Order Performance Work Statement | Page 4, para 4.1.7 | Reference. The Contractor shall organize and attend Tier 1 Weekly Meetings within 10 miles driving distance of the Quantico Corporate Center located at 1000 Corporate Drive, Stafford, Virginia. Network and power connections for each attendee are required. Presentation equipment must be available for use to include, but not limited to projectors, televisions, monitors, and conference capable telephones |
Question. What is the maximum number of personnel expected to attend (i.e., what is the required conference room size?)
| The Tier 1 meetings range in size from approximately 12 individuals for the core Tier I team member to a maximum of approximately 75 when the project teams and key support personnel attend. | ||
| 40 | INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS | 25 of 64 |
And Reference.
4.a.iii) Section Three - No Page Limit. The Offeror shall submit a breakdown of the level of effort necessary to complete the ENTIRE Task Order (i.e. all requirements denoted in the Exhibit C and D Task Order Matrix and Task Order PWS, not just the critical items in the table above). The level of effort breakdown shall consist of each individual labor category, as well as the hours to be performed by each identified labor category in performance of the requirements, necessary to complete the requirements identified for each SLIN (e.g. 0004AA, 0004AB, etc.).
c) Volume 3- Pricing Volume consisting of two sections:
i) Section One - No Page Limit. The Offeror shall provide a spreadsheet consisting of the following:
A. one fixed hourly burdened rate for each individual labor category necessary to complete the requirements identified in the Task Order for each SLIN (e.g. 0004AA, 0004AB, etc.).
Question. The IDIQ PWS contains tasks that are not contained in the Task Order PWS. In order to comply with the reference statements above, we will not be submitting labor categories or pricing for any element in the IDIQ PWS that does not also exist at the Task Order level. Is it the intent of the Government that the IDIQ requirements not included in the Task Order not be priced, and therefore not be available to execute in future?
The Government's intent is to be able to lock the service provider into set FFP labor category and rates. It would be anticipated, based on historical support, that the Tasks within the Base IDIQ PWS that are not specifically on the Task Order PWS would be accomplished by the existing labor categories and rates, if they were requested at a later date. By definition, a task being on the Base IDIQ (Indefinite delivery, Indefinite Quantity) allows the Government the ability to order it, if needed. Should the need arise where a task order requires a labor category and rate that is not currently on contract, the Government will negotiate a change to add that labor category in accordance with FAR 52.212-4(c). As each delivery order will be negotiated separately based on the labor categories and rates fixed at contract award, this should not be an issue.
The possibility of needing additional labor categories post award was considered prior to release of the solicitation. Hence, the task order PWS offerors are proposing on provides a significant representation of work expected, and, thereby, providing an order which should encapsulate the majority of labor categories and rates necessary for this contract overall.
| 41 | Attachment 1 – PWS | Attachment 1 – PWS / Page 2 / Paragraph 3.2 / Line Number 76-81 | Does the Contractor’s facility have to be within 10 miles driving distance of the Quantico Corporate Center located at 1000 Corporate Drive, Stafford, Virginia? | The contractor facility does not have to be within 10 miles of the Quantico Corporate Center (QCC); however, all TFITS meetings organized by the contractor should be within 10 miles of QCC. |
| 42 | Exhibit D | Task Order Performance Work Statement/Paragraph 6/ Line 434 | If the offeror (prime) does not have a Secret Facility Clearance; but will work from the Tier-1 SubK facility, and the Tier-1 SubK has a valid/active Secret Facility Clearance, will the Government accept this as meeting the requirement for proposal submission? | Yes. |
| 43 | RFP | Page 29 of 64/Paragraph 4.b.ii | Will the absence of “relevant” past performance by an offeror (prime), but with “relevant” past performance by their Tier-1 SubK be deemed neutral in evaluation? | As provided within the solicitation, "It is an Offeror's responsibility to submit a well-written proposal, with adequately detailed information which demonstrates its clear understanding of, and compliance with, the solicitation requirements. (Instructions to Offerors, para 1) . As such, the Government will not provide a "pre-evaluation", or provide specifics to any certain company as to how/what to propose . However, the Government would advise that the solicitation requirements regarding past performance are very clear, "while the Offeror may provide Past Performance examples from team members or major subcontractors (defined as those responsible for at least 10% of the work), at least two (2) of the Past Performance examples provided must be for the prime Offeror (as opposed to team members/major subcontractors)." As stated in the table on page 36 of the RFP, Neutral is defined as follows: "In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance and for whom information on past performance is not available; the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have a neutral past performance rating." Therefore, if no past performance is provided, the Offeror is not evaluated favorably or unfavorably and is given a neutral rating. |
| 44 | RFP | Page 28 of 64/paragraph 4.a.iii | What is the historical Level of Effort by labor category, hours, and Deliverable to support the requirements? | The Government has provided the appropriate information in Exhibit E. |
| 45 | RFP | Page 62 of 64/Paragraph 1 & page 33 of 64/paragraph 4.d.i.F | Page 62 States, “the ordering period is from 20 July 2015 to 19 April 2019” and page 33 states “over a 4.5 year ordering period”. Is the IDIQ ordering period 3 years 8 months or 4 years 6 months? | Ordering period for the base ID/IQ is 4 years and 10 months. The first ordering period will be 10 months in length. The other 4 years will be 12 months in length. The first Ordering period will coincide with the planned award. See updated Exhibit D, TO PWS and updated Attachment 1, Base ID/IQ PWS. |
| 46 | RFP | Page 23 of 64/Paragraph 3 & page 33 of 64 | Page 23 States, “ Proposal shall be valid for a period of 120 days”. Page 64 States, “not less than 90 calendar days”. Please confirm number of days requested. | Page 21 has been corrected. Proposal shall be valid for a period of 90 days. See Amendment 0001. |
| 47 | General | If the offeror has the lowest price, and the technical proposal is found to be technically acceptable, however the past performance is rated as neutral. Will the award be made to that contractor? | A rating of Neutral will have no bearing on the decision. | |
| 48 | General | If the 8(a) has a mentor protégé agreement with another company approved through the SBA, will the government recognize the past performance of the 8(a) mentor as that of the protégé? | No. | |
| 49 | RFP | Page 29 of 64/Paragraph 4.b.ii | Will a Past Performance rating of Neutral be considered acceptable for contract award? | Yes. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .