Attachment_J36_-_CCS_RFP_Questions_Govt_Responses_dtd_18OCT2017_(per_Amendment_0004).pdf

# Section # Line # Comment Rationale Recommendation Response

1 L.6 Volume III - Price

Section L.6 clearly states that “the Contracting Officer shall give Offerors from HUBZone small business concerns a price evaluation preference” by applying “a 10% factor to each FFP CLIN for all those who don’t qualify for the exemptions under FAR 19.1307 (i.e., for any entity that answers “yes” for Q1 or Q2”).” By answering “yes” to Q1 or Q2, it seems that any small business will receive price evaluation preference not just HUBZone small business concerns.

Is it the Government’s intention to provide all small business offerors a price evaluation preference or just HUBZone small business concerns? For example: A non-HUBZone small business would answer no to both Q1 and Q2 and not incur the 10% factor. Therefore it seems the price evaluation preference is being given to all small business concerns vice HUBZone small business concerns.

Recommend limiting the preference to only HUBZone small businesses, not to include “regular” small businesses. Or recommend changing the NAICS code (see question below) in order to provide opportunity for more small businesses.

Please refer to revisions within Sections L and M of RFP, annotated accordingly therein. Also, refer to revised Attachment J32 for related information.

B.2 Supplies or Services and Prices

Will the Government consider changing the NAICS code to a code that determines Small Business eligibility based upon the number of employees, rather than by revenue?

This change would increase the number of eligible small business offerors, increase the small business participation on this effort, and increase offerors meeting the Small Business Goals established in the RFP.

Recommend changing the NAICS code to 333318 for this procurement. The Government does not intend to change the assigned NAICS code of 541511.

3 SOW 3.0 85

Regarding the adjustable military vertical lift platform, what is the model required for CCS? Is the lift pneumatic, electric, mechanical, or adjustable by hand?

It is unclear what part and fidelity is required to meet this requirement.

The adjustable military vertical lift platform model is the MTVR Seat Platform Kit and it is adjustable by hand. Refer to System Performance Specification Section 3.3.2.1.

4 SOW 3.13

Is the contractor required to upload RMF information to the enterprise Mission Assurance Support Server (eMASS) portal? If eMASS is not required, which tool will the AO require (i.e Xacta, Keystone)?

The tool required will affect level of effort needed to meet requirements.

RMF information shall be uploaded into the Marine Corps Certification and Accreditation Support Tool

(MCCAST).

5 SOW 3.13 Will the system categorization be as follows: Confidentiality (Low), Integrity (Low), Availability (low)?

The SOW currently states that the Categorization is Low, so the assumption is Low, Low, Low, however clarification is being sought.

Security Categorization CCS Modification Program = {(confidentiality, low), (integrity, low), (availability, low)}

6 SOW 3.13 Will SECNAV Manual 5239.2, dated June 2016, be applied to the system or is there additional Department of Navy guidance?

Some controls will be answered by the manual if the system is able to inherit controls from the manual.

From paragraph 2 of the Introduction Section of SECNAV Manual 5239.2: "This manual applies to the Office of the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV), the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), all U.S. Navy (USN) and U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) installations, commands, activities, and field offices, and all other organizational entities within the DON."

There is no additional DON guidance.

7 SPEC 3.6

An Interim Authority-to-Test (IATT) is noted as required. Is this requirement related to connection of the CCS with other simulator systems, or a requirement of the AO?

Obtaining an IATT requires additional upfront effort.

The IATT is required for the period of system testing that includes the FCA. Since an SCV Pre- Assessment is expected to be conducted prior to the FCA, the RMF documentation resident in MCCAST should be at a level of completeness for the Government to request an IATT from the AO. No additional upfront effort outside the RMF A&A process towards obtaining an ATO is expected.

8 SPEC 3.3.2.7 Can the controls of the current CREW-2 C-IED device be reused?

If the existing CCS CREW-2 C-IED controls are sufficient, and match the requested/required CREW-2 solution, they can be reused and therefore reduce cost.

The user interface for the controls found inside the vehicle cabin shall function in a manner consistent with the user interface installed in the current CCS. The current CREW-2 C-IED hardware will need to be replaced and the software source code is unavailable for reuse

9 SPEC

3.3.2.10

Regarding the MTVR roller, what roller controller model is required for

CCS?

The model of roller controller will affect cost, notably the presence or absence of an LCD display.

The MTVR shall simulate the Mine Roller System (MRS) Panama City Division (PCD) Generation III.

The MRS PCD Gen III uses a light switch controller that allows the operator to turn white lights or infrared lights on and off. The MRS PCD Gen III also uses a spring-loaded steering switch controller that allows the operator to turn the MRS modular front table left or right.

10 L4 and M.4

The Small Business Plan with Alternative II, as required by FAR 52.219- 9 indicates the small business participation "with a separate part for the basic contract and separate parts for each option (if any)."

How would the Government suggest breaking out of the 127 CLINs into option periods for this proposal?

Many of the options state a period of performance (Ex CLINs 7000-7005), but many of the CLINs do not fit an "Option Period" that is easy to align or evaluate.

Recommend the Government provide CLIN structure to use for Small Business Participation.

The Government has revised RFP Section L to provide CLIN groupings.

11 L4 and M.4

Additional to the Small Business Plan question above, the RFP states that "percentages shall be calculated by dividing the total dollars to be contracted per category by the total overall proposed price of the solicitation".

When providing percentages for the "basic contract and separate parts for each option" should the percentages be calculated by the total overall proposed price of solicitation (base and options) or calculated by the total proposed price for the basic contract and by each option?

Without clarification, percentages and small business participation can be provided in widely different manners and methods.

Recommend the Government clarify how percentages are calculated for each of the "basic contract and separate parts for each option".

CCS RFP Section M indicates that the subcontracting plan must contain all required information under FAR clause 52.219-9 Alt II. In addition, per Sections L and M of the RFP and 52.219-9Alt II (d) (1), the Government / Contracting Office has requested that the proposed individual subcontracting plans also include goals expressed in terms of percentage of total contract dollars (i.e. base plus options in total) for a respective small business category.

Per this Amendment 0004, CCS RFP Section L and M have been revised. Please refer accordingly to annotated revisions therein for additional details.

12 L.7 and M.7

Throughout the RFP, the Government uses the word Offeror to describe the requirements performed under the CCS proposal effort. In Section L.7 on Page 114 as well as M.7 on Page 125 uses the term “Contractor” is used to describe the requirements for Federal Firearms License. Does the Government intend to require submittal of evidence of a Class 9 FFL with the proposal, or at a later date pending Contract Award?

Currently, ATF anticipates a 3-6 month window for the Class 9 certification. The process/timeline is controlled by the Government (ATF), and is outside the control of any offeror.

Recommend sufficient evidence be submitted to the Contracting Officer after Contract Award.

The Government has revised the FFL requirement in sections L and M of the RFP, removing the Class 9 FFL language but now requiring submission of the affidavit in Attachment J34 as part of a proposal.

Accordingly, the Government has revised the SOW, sections 3.3.1.3 and 3.4.1.2.1 to reflect revisions to the FFL requirement.

Attachment J36 - Combat Convoy Simulator Modification (CCS) Government Response to RFP Questions dtd 18OCT2017

13 L.7 and M.7

Section L.7 on Page 114 as well as M.7 on Page 125 clearly indicates the requirement for an active Class 9 Dealer in Destructive Devices FFL.

Section G.9 on Page 61 of the RFP also clearly indicates “all legacy CCS system weapons are simulated/demilitarized weapons utilized for training and are not real weapons” Can the Government explain why a Class 9 FFL is required for these weapons? Can the Government clarify if a lower Class FFL is sufficient?

Because the Government has indicated the legacy weapon systems are not real weapons, it seems to follow that that the FFL requirement were dependent upon any upgrades to the legacy weapon systems, which is unique to each Offeror. For this reason, each Offeror should determine how to accomplish compliance with ATF. For example: An Offeror with experience in upgrading and maintaining training systems (to include simulated weapons) similar to the CCS Upgrade Effort might propose a unique solution where a Class 8 FFL is sufficient to meet all law/regulations of ATF.

Recommend providing what ATF laws/regulations Offerors must comply with and allow Offerors to determine which Class FFL is sufficient based upon their proposed weapon solution.

Attachment J35 has been added to provide industry context regarding the FFL requirement. Of note, the information within J35 was sent to Program Manager - Training Systems in response to a program that has similarities to the CCS effort. Futhermore, industry is responsible for complying with all laws and regulations applicable to the CCS effort, whether these be expressed directly in the to-be-awarded CCS contract or externally applicable to said contract. Speaking in a historical context as it relates to the experience of Program Manager - Training Systems, while a Class 9 FFL has been sufficient in complying with regulations and laws relevant to weapons systems tied to efforts comparable to this CCS procurement, industry is ultimately responsible for coordinating with the appropriate Government agencies (e.g. the ATF, etc.) to ensure adherence with pertinent, and up-to-date rules and regulations.

14 Attachment J3

In reference to Attachment J3 CDRL A00J Reliability & Maintainability, what is "ISR"?

This was a Government error. The Government's revised the requirement for CDRL A00J, Block 12 as follows:

"Submission shall be due 10 business days prior to CDR".

Attachments J3 and J4 have been revised, accordingly.

15 Attachment J3

D00B is listed in Attachment J3, but not referenced in the SOW. Is this CDRL required, or a duplicate of D00A? Reference the PWS. CDRL D00B is a requirement under the PWS (J2).

16 Attachment J3

F004 is listed in Attachment J3, but not referenced in the SOW. Is this CDRL required? Same as above, please reference the PWS (J2).

L.7 Volume IV - Contract Information

It is not clear if Section B CLIN Pricing is to be included in Volume IV "Contract Information" as part of the SF33 requirement. It does not appear that Section B is to be included in the Pricing Volume III.

In many solicitations, price information is only to be included in the Price volume. The instructions in L.7.A for Volume IV Contract Information under Section 1 say "The Offeror shall submit a signed SF33 with any/all Amendments acknowledged and all appropriate “fill-ins” clauses/provisions completed. It should also include all representations and certifications...." It is not clear whether the Section B CLIN pricing is to be completed and included in Volume IV.

Please clarify whether Section B CLIN Pricing is to be completed and included in Volume IV Contract Information, in Volume III Price, or not at all?

The pricing attachment (J32) is to be submitted as part of Volume III. This information is submitted in lieu of Section B CLIN Pricing in the SF33. Section B CLIN Pricing "fill-in" figures are not required.

There are 83 different CDRLs listed at various levels of frequency, 13 being due at the PAC. As stated at the top each CDRL sheet: “The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 110 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.” At that rate, there is over 4 man years of work just to submit each CDRL only once, and some CDRLs have multiple submissions. This is a significant level of effort for modernizing 7 training devices. Due to the significant time, cost and resources, will the Government consider CDRL CLINs to be outside the scope of the dollar threshold stated in M.6 Price Evaluation or minimize the number of CDRLs in order to focus more effort into the actual training device?

No.

In Attachment J3 - CCS-2.2.4-CCS Mod CDRLs- 2 1 the CDRL for “A004 TEST AND EVALUATION PROGRAM PLAN (TEPP)” in Block 16 says “BLK 12 - Submission shall be due at RFP” (Request for Proposal). How is this posable? Did you mean with proposal, or 7 DAC similar to the other ‘Plans’?

In M67854-17-R-7832 (CCS) - RFP Issued 21AUG2017 section L.4 VOLUME 1 - Technical Approach Proposal Instructions it says “C.

Section 3 SEMP and TEPP: Utilizing the Government’s Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) (Attachment J19) and Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) (Attachment J20), the Offeror shall provide a CCS Modification Program Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) and Test and Evaluation Program Plan (TEPP) per the requirements described in CDRL A00X and A00Y.”

A SEMP and TEPP IAW CDRL A003 and A004 requirements shall be submitted as part of a proposal (see RFP L4(C)).

Upon contract award, A003 and A0004 shall be due 7 DAC and as further detailed in the respective CDRL form. Attachments J3 and J4 have been revised accordingly.

What is meant by “per the requirements described in CDRL A00X and A00Y”? Did you mean to “per the requirements described in CDRL A004 and A003” (SEMP and TEMP) as the CDRL sheet says A00X is due 10 business days after completion of the PAT&E and A00Y is due 20 business days prior to TRR.

Yes. The reference should be to the SEMP (A003) and TEPP (A004) CDRLs. The RFP, Section L4(C), has been revised accordingly.

If you meant A004 and A003, does this mean that the government intends to have the offers submit the actual SEMP and TEPP as a CDRL with their proposal? Or rather a strategy for Systems Engineering and Test Evaluation as it relates to the SEP and TEMP?

A SEMP and TEPP IAW CDRL A003 and A004 requirements shall be submitted as part of a proposal (see RFP L4(C)).

Upon contract award, A003 and A0004 shall be due 7 DAC and as further detailed in the respective CDRL form. Attachments J3 and J4 have been revised accordingly.

Given that the contractor does not have the System/Subsystem specifications and a Preliminary Design review has not been done with the Government/Contractor team, what level of detail is the Government expecting with regards to the SEMP and the TEPP in relation to the CDRLs identified?

The Government expects the SEMP and TEPP to meet the requirements specified in the CDRL Forms A003 and A004, respectively.

If CDRLs OF ANY TYPE are to be delivered with proposal does the page count for that section include the cover page, revision tracking table, table of contents, table of tables, table of images, acronym list and other non-substantive pages?

Refer to RFP, Paragraph L2(B)(5) states: “Each volume shall contain a title page, table of contents, and list of tables and figures for that volume. Should the Offeror need, each section may also contain a title page/cover, table of contents, table of figures, and list of figures. Pages only used specifically for title page, table of contents, list of tables and figures information, and glossaries of acronyms and abbreviations will not count against volume page limitations. Use tab separators to separate required sections within a volume.” For the purpose of providing further clarity, the above is applicable to CDRL deliveries and other sections within volumes of the proposal.

No revision tracking tables are included within this Request for Proposal.

If an offeror needs to include a revision tracking table within its own submission, this will not be added to the page count.

There is nowhere in the RFP or attachments that clearly defined the difference between “Modification” and “Installation”. Can the government please define what activities they see encompassing the Modification CLINS versus the Installation CLINS so that the offers of may properly distribute the costs.

The Government has revised the SOW, para. 1.1 with the following definitions of Modification and Installation (which includes delivery):

Modification: All planning, system design, production of system and system components, procurement and shipping of parts and components, and other requirements in the SOW related to the first 15 months of the contract. Includes all SETR events up to and including meeting the exit criteria of the first SVR IAW SOW para. 3.4.1.4. Modification does not include installation of the modified systems.

Installation: All requirements identified in the SOW beginning 15 months after contract award with the assumption of CCS responsibilities IAW SOW para. 3.29 and up to Government acceptance of each of the delivered systems. Includes testing, delivery, and acceptance of each of systems.

SOW 3.12.3, second to last paragraph states: "The testbed’s configuration shall be identical to that of the pre-production, production and post-production baseline. Changes to the pre-production, production and post-production baselines shall also be applied to the CCS testbed." In this context, the test bed product baseline shall align with the CCS Modification Program product baseline at SVR (pre-production), after installation of each CCS system (production), and upon any modifications made to the product baseline after the final installation (post-production).

CLINs 0001-0007 are for the CCS System Modification and the PoP is the same across all CLINs. What constitutes fulfillment of this CLIN?

Does final acceptance of the design constitute fulfillment and the Contractor can bill for all 7 CLINs or is there some other triggering event? Will the Government’s consider performance based payment if all 7 CLINs can only be billed at the end of the 15 month PoP?

The contractor may bill for CLINs 0001-0007 upon meeting the exit criteria of the first SVR IAW SOW para. 3.4.1.4.

Progess payments or performance-based payments will not be considered for this contract.

26 CLINs 0100-0109, system installation, are considered “options.” At what point does the Government intend to exercise these options?

"If the Government chooses to exercise the options described in CLINs 0100-0109, the intent is to exercise them upon meeting the exit criteria of the first SVR in accordance with SOW para. 3.4.1.4."

Is B006 CONTRACTOR’S PERSONNEL ROSTER for on-site personnel during the CLS portion of contract or is this for all phases of the program

B006 is a requirement for all phases of the contract as identified in SOW 3.1.8 and PWS 3.6.

In M67854-17-R-7832 (CCS) - RFP Issued 21AUG2017 CLINs: 0008, 0107, 1007, 1107, 1207, 1307, 2001, 2101, 2301, 2401, 6002, 6007, 7002, 7102, and 7202 all say:

Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

FFP

CDRLs CCS Systems Modification - Not Separately Priced (NSP) FOB:

Destination

But in J32-Pricing Template they are all set up as “NSP” except 0008 which is set up as “FFP”, which is correct?

The RFP Section B is correct. CLIN 0008 shall be a Not Separately Priced (NSP) CLIN similar to all other “CDRL” CLINs.

If these CLINs are all NSP which CLIN(s) should the offeror associate the cost for these each CDRL, or are we to associate all CRDL costs with CLIN 0008 as FFP.

The offeror shall associate costs to the respective CLIN grouping. For example, costs for Modification CDRLs under CLIN 0008 shall be associated to CLINs 0001-0007. Similarly, costs for Installation CDRLs (CLIN 0107) shall be associated to CLINs 0100-0106. This is the case for all CDRL CLINs under contract. In addition, all CDRL CLINs shall be NSP type CLINs.

Several phrases are used interchangeably between the SOW, PWS, and RFP. Can the government please clarify the difference between installation and delivery? Can the Government please clarify the difference between production and modification? Can the Government please clarify the difference between pre-production, production and post-production?

Please reference response to question # 24.

SOW lines 56, 57 state:

“Changes to the modification, installation, and delivery schedule and/or order may be directed by the Contracting Officer at no additional cost to the Government prior to the Test Readiness Review (TRR).”

Minor changes such as a 2-week delivery delay can be easily absorbed prior to TRR. However, this requirement is not sufficiently defined to develop an FFP; for example there will be a cost impact if delivery of half of the systems is delayed 18 months for the convenience of the USMC.

Please clarify/bound what changes the KO may make to the modification, installation, and delivery schedule/order.

The Government has revised the requirement. Please reference SOW, para. 3.

32 Does the IMS that is to be submitted with the proposal needed to have the activities that constitute all of the CLINs or just the non-option CLINs The IMS shall include all activities identified in the SOW and PWS, to include all options.

Is the current system accredited? Does the CCS System Modification efforts require full re-accreditation or just updated to the existing accreditation?

No. The current system is not accredited. The CCS Modification effort requires accreditation as specified in the SOW.

RFP Section M.7 Contract Information. Is the Contractor required to be FFL Class 9 (or higher, as higher numbered classes allow the holder to act in the capacity of a lower numbered class) at time of award?

The Government has revised the FFL requirement in sections L and M of the RFP, removing the Class 9 FFL language but now requiring submission of the affidavit in Attachment J34 as part of a proposal.

Accordingly, the Government has revised the SOW, sections 3.3.1.3 and 3.4.1.2.1 to reflect revisions to the FFL requirement.

RFP Section M.7 Contract Information. Will the contract be required to obtain a FFL class 11 (Importer of Destructive Devices) in order to be able to ship simulated weapons from Okinawa to the United States for upgrades and maintenance.

Each offeror is responsible for determining how to comply with applicable State and Federal firearms laws, including which, if any, licenses are applicable to perform the work solicited. The Marine Corps is attaching a copy of a letter in its possession as Attachment J35 which discusses the ATF's reasoning with respect to a similar system for information purposes only. The letter is not to be relied upon as a determination that a license is or is not required. The Marine Corps will not take on any responsibility for contacting ATF in the event a contract is awarded to assist the awardee in obtaining any Federal Firearms license(s) that may be required.

Spec Para 3.3.1.1.2 – States “A trigger shall be capable of invoking another trigger.” Please clarify and what is expected or provide an example.

When a trigger is invoked, other triggers resident in the scenario can be activated or deactivated based upon invocation of that trigger.

What constitutes CLIN 3000 (USMC CCS Test Bed)? Is it the Materials and effort to construct and deliver or just to deliver a test bed that is constructed and paid for under the base CLINs?

CLIN 3000 should constitute the cost for the CCS test bed to be delivered to the Government. The Government has revised the PWS, specifically Appendix A, section 4.6.6 to address requirements for the delivery of the testbed.

Materials and efforts to construct, maintain, and store the test bed may be priced elsewhere in the CLIN structure.

Sow 3.27 defines 15 pre-defined scenarios and references the System Performance Specification Appendix B. Appendix B identifies all Combat Convoy training tasks Z001-Z248. The SOW continues in line 1659 to determine that each training task list shall be performed in at least one of the 15 pre-defined scenarios. What are the pre-defined scenarios?

The pre-defined scenarios shall be developed by the contractor and provided to the Government during installation of the modified systems. The Government’s only requirement is that all tasks within the Training Task List (System Performance Specification Appendix B) be performed in at least one of the 15 scenarios the contractor shall develop.

Attachment J13 CCS Scenario Description Outline, page 2 states that the contractor shall utilize legacy CCS scenarios as a guide and example and references the O&M Manual. The O&M Manual lists 20 exercises tied to 5 databases. Which 15 of the 20 are in scope?

All 20 existing scenarios are within scope. The contractor shall use these 20 existing scenarios presented in the O&M Manual as a guide and example. The contractor is not required to duplicate the exact scenarios nor provide the same number of scenarios. The Government’s requirement is for fifteen contractor-developed scenarios with a respective outline. Please reference SOW 3.27 for further details on the Government’s requirements as it pertains to scenarios.

Attachment J1 SOW section 3.26 defines 10 databases to be delivered.

Which pre-defined scenarios and/or scenario outlines apply to each database?

Please refer to SOW 3.27: “Each of the fifteen scenarios shall be executable in at least one of the ten required terrain databases detailed in section 3.26 of this document.” The specific way by which this requirement is met shall be the responsibility of the contractor.

When researching the Crew 2 jammer there are many different versions of the user interface (controls found inside the vehicle cabin). Which version of the Crew 2 user interface is to be simulated in the CCS, or are we to reuse the user Interface that is installed in the CCS currently?

The user interface for the controls found inside the vehicle cabin shall function in a manner consistent with the user interface installed in the current CCS. The current CREW-2 C-IED hardware will need to be replaced and the software source code is unavailable for reuse.

For the The Joint Battle Command – Platform (JBC-P). Will we be supplied enough tactical/actual JBC-P devices as GFP so that we can integrate them directly in the training device (one for each Humvee and MTVR), or will we be given just one as an example and be expected to create a simulated version.

The Government intends to provide actual JBC-P devices as GFP for integration into each vehicle at each CCS system and each vehicle in the CCS Test Bed.

We anticipate that the answers to industry’s questions will significantly impact proposal responses and pricing. Does the Gov’t intend to adjust the proposal due date to allow offerors to account for any changes resulting from the Government’s answers to Q&A?

See update to Solicitation on FEDBIZOPS, which includes all document revisions as a result of industry submitted questions.

On the pricing template row 24 column H it says "SUM of CLINs 0001- 0010 and 0100-0110" it is clear that this is adding up the CLINS that must be below 21.5 million. However it is adding up "Subtotal B" column for those CLINS.

Which when you set the Q1 or Q2 flag at the bottom of the spreadsheet to yes it increases that subtotal by 10%. Which does not accurately represent the price that is being quoted and it could be interpreted as being noncompliant with the 21.5 million ceiling for those CLINS.

Please refer to revisions within Sections L and M of RFP, annotated accordingly therein. Also, refer to revised Attachment J32 for related information.

Finally, specifically regarding the question about a qualifying offer needing to be below the $21.5 Mil threshold inclusive of the 10% price increase preference (as applicable), Section M has remained unchanged since proposal issuance in this regard.

The optional six-month extension of service for PDSS does not self-populate. My only concern here is that the RFP specifically says not to fill in those columns, but if we don't it will seem as if they were not priced at all.

Also when you enter a price for PDSS option 2, option 3, and the six-month extension, it does not self-populate into "Unit Price", "Subtotal A", or "Subtotal B" columns because there is no quantity in the Qty column.

it seems this is happening because we have to break up the USMC and Navy finding ourselves and plug them in rather than having those self-populate. My only concern here is that those CLIN are not being taken into account for the "Total Evaluated Price" that is added up at the bottom of the spreadsheet

The Pricing Spreadsheet (Attachment J32) has been revised and reissued to address industry's concerns.

Please note the following: - Fill in of "Unit Prices" (Attachment J32, column F) for individual line items within CLIN set 1200-1206 will auto-populate information on a 1:1 "Unit Price" basis for respective, individual counterparts within CLIN set 1300-1306. The same is true for CLIN "2300" ("fill in" line item) compared to CLIN 2400 (auto-populated from CLIN 2300 "Unit Price" information) The same is true for CLIN set 7100-7101 ("fill in" line items) compared to CLIN set 7200-7201 (auto-populated from CLIN set 7100-7101 "Unit Price" information) ; - Of note, for CLINs 2100, 2300, and 2400 as expressed in revised Attachment J32, these are slightly different than what is expressed in Section B (the latter showing 2100, 2300, and 2400 as Informational CLINs with priced SLIN counterparts of 2100AA, 2100AB, 2300AA, 2300AB, 2400AA, and 2400AB). Offerors are to fill out revised Attachment J32. The differences in expression between Attachment J32 and Section B are simply due to the fact that multiple funding sponsors are expected to fund the 2100, 2300, and 2400 line items, so SLINs will have to be broken out in order to facilitate funding and subsequent billing in applicable Government electronic business systems. In accordance with the RFP, offerors are to fill out and submit J32 to support their proposed Pricing Volume.