N0002418R2300_FFG(X)_CD_RFP_Bidders_Questions_Release_1.pdf

PDF 124 KB Posted Nov 20, 2017

Attached to: Guided Missile Frigate (FFG(X)) Conceptual Design
Solicitation number: N0002418R2300
Issued by: Department of the Navy Naval Sea Systems Command

About this file

From the source

N0002418R2300 FFG(X) CD RFP Bidder's Questions Release 1

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
N0002418R2300-0002_Conformed_Copy.docx	DOCX document	Dec 11, 2017
N0002418R2300-0002.docx	DOCX document	Dec 11, 2017
N0002418R2300_FFG(X)_CD_RFP_Bidders_Questions_Release_6.pdf	PDF	Dec 11, 2017
N0002418R2300_FFG(X)_CD_RFP_Bidders_Questions_Release_5.pdf	PDF	Dec 7, 2017
N0002418R2300-0001.docx	DOCX document	Dec 1, 2017
N0002418R2300-0001_Conformed_Copy.docx	DOCX document	Dec 1, 2017
N0002418R2300_FFG(X)_CD_RFP_Bidders_Questions_Release_4.pdf	PDF	Dec 1, 2017
N0002418R2300_FFG(X)_CD_RFP_Bidders_Questions_Release_3.pdf	PDF	Nov 30, 2017
N0002418R2300_FFG(X)_CD_RFP_Bidders_Questions_Release_2.pdf	PDF	Nov 28, 2017
FFG(X)_CD_RFP_Industry_Day_Brief_-_17_November_2017_FBO.pdf	PDF	Nov 18, 2017
FFG(X)_CD_RFP_Industry_Day_Attendee_List_17_November_2017_FBO.pdf	PDF	Nov 18, 2017
FFG(X)_CD_RFP_Classified_Material_Request_Form_FBO.doc	DOC document	Oct 16, 2017

Show all 12

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

N0002418R2300

FFG(X) CONCEPTUAL DESIGN (CD) RFP QUESTIONS

# Question Response

RFP BIDDER'S QUESTIONS RELEASE 1 (#1-17)

Note: The following are answers to questions received from potential offerors. The answers provide clarification only and DO NOT constitute an amendment to the solicitation.

L.1.2.5 Cover Pages, Title Pages, Table of Contents, Executive Summaries, Lists of Illustrations, Lists of Tables, Tab Pages, Appendices, Glossaries, and

Indices will not be included in the total page count.

L.1.5.1.4.2 At a minimum, Offerors shall describe:

i. Design Approach. Identify and describe the technical approach to adapt a parent design to meet FFG(X) requirements. A parent design is defined as a design of a ship that has been through production and demonstrated (full scale) at sea. The parent design that has been adapted to meet FFG(X) requirements is referred to as the “FFG(X) ship design” in this section and the following sections. Provide information that describes the parent design characteristics as necessary to explain the plan to modify this design. Artifacts could include:

(a) displacement;

(b) margins;

(d) hydrostatics;

(e) combat capability;

(f) general arrangement;

(g) lines plan (including offsets) and hull appendages drawing; curves of form;

(h) major equipment list and associated capacities (prime movers, generators, AC plants, etc.);

(i) machinery and shafting arrangement;

(j) damage control and survivability features;

(k) speed/power information; endurance range calculation (range and speed);

(l) mass properties report (to at least 1 digit Ship Work Breakdown Structure level, including foreign Work Breakdown Structure description if nonstandard);

(m) Electric Plant Load Analysis (EPLA or equivalent);

(n) Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) and cooling load analysis;

(o) design/service life margins inherent to design;

(p) reliability/maintainability metrics;

(q) design loads for structural design;

(r) structural details used; shock loads used;

(s) welding requirement(s) source;

(t) build specification or requirements document used to construct parent hull (provide in a separate appendix);

(u) material type(s) for hull, superstructure, and mast; and

(v) ship manning requirements.

Is it acceptable to provide the artifacts listed in L.1.5.1.4.2.i as appendices which do not count towards the 75 page limit?

Yes, the artifacts in L.1.5.1.4.2.i can be provided as appendices, which do not count towards the 75 page limit.

L.1.2.5 Cover Pages, Title Pages, Table of Contents, Executive Summaries, Lists of Illustrations, Lists of Tables, Tab Pages, Appendices, Glossaries, and

Indices will not be included in the total page count.

(t) build specification or requirements document used to construct parent hull (provide in a separate appendix);

Please confirm that the parent build specification/requirements document may be provided in an appendix which does not count towards the 75 page limit.

Yes, the Build Specification can be provided as an appendix, which do not count towards the 75 page limit.

L.1.2.4 Proposals shall be prepared on standard 8-1/2” by 11” paper, single-spaced. The Offeror’s company name and solicitation number shall appear at the top of each page. A date shall be placed on each page of the proposal corresponding to the date of the initial proposal. Any pages that may be revised as a result of discussions shall contain revision numbers and dates. Every paragraph, figure, and table shall be numbered. The font shall be Times New

Roman with a font size of 12 in Standard English. Pages shall have a one-inch margin, single line spacing set at 1 with spacing before and after paragraphs set at –0– and left aligned paragraphs. Type font size for foldouts or other pages may not be smaller than size 12. For text embedded in graphic portions of the proposal, the type font size may be any readable font type and size. Text located outside graphic portions of a sheet shall be Times New Roman with a font size of 12. A page is defined as a typed page of the proposal document, i.e. one sheet of paper with typing on one side. Pages may have typing on two sides, but for the purposes of the page count limitation, each side with content will be counted as one page. Foldouts shall fold from left to right (sideways), shall not exceed 11” by 17” and shall count as two pages. Foldouts may be used for diagrams, charts, or graphic material only that could not be depicted otherwise on standard 8-1/2” by 11” paper.

(a) displacement;

(b) margins;

(d) hydrostatics;

(e) combat capability;

(f) general arrangement;

(g) lines plan (including offsets) and hull appendages drawing; curves of form;

(h) major equipment list and associated capacities (prime movers, generators, AC plants, etc.);

(i) machinery and shafting arrangement;

(j) damage control and survivability features;

(k) speed/power information; endurance range calculation (range and speed);

(l) mass properties report (to at least 1 digit Ship Work Breakdown Structure level, including foreign Work Breakdown Structure description if nonstandard);

(m) Electric Plant Load Analysis (EPLA or equivalent);

(n) Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) and cooling load analysis;

(o) design/service life margins inherent to design;

(p) reliability/maintainability metrics;

(q) design loads for structural design;

(r) structural details used; shock loads used;

(s) welding requirement(s) source;

(t) build specification or requirements document used to construct parent hull (provide in a separate appendix);

(u) material type(s) for hull, superstructure, and mast; and

(v) ship manning requirements.

Many original parent ship artifacts will not comply with formatting requirements in L.1.2.4. For example, parent ship drawings may not have the specified margins , font sizes, headers/footers, etc. Additionally, drawings may be in a sheet format larger than 8-1/2”x11” or 11”x17” sheets .

Please confirm that a) the original parent ship artifact formatting is acceptable if included in appendices and b) whether drawing sheets larger than 11”x17” are acceptable in appendices.

If provided,

a) Original parent ship artifact formatting is acceptable to submit as an appedix; except for drawing sheet sizes larger than 11"x17" paper;

b) Drawing sheets larger than 11"x17" paper will not be accepted.

Please confirm that tables are considered graphics and therefore any readable font type and size is acceptable.

Yes, tables are considered graphics, and any readable font type and size is acceptable.

(a) displacement;

(b) margins;

(d) hydrostatics;

(e) combat capability;

(f) general arrangement;

(g) lines plan (including offsets) and hull appendages drawing; curves of form;

(h) major equipment list and associated capacities (prime movers, generators, AC plants, etc.);

(i) machinery and shafting arrangement;

(j) damage control and survivability features;

(k) speed/power information; endurance range calculation (range and speed);

(l) mass properties report (to at least 1 digit Ship Work Breakdown Structure level, including foreign Work Breakdown Structure description if nonstandard);

(m) Electric Plant Load Analysis (EPLA or equivalent);

(n) Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) and cooling load analysis;

(o) design/service life margins inherent to design;

(p) reliability/maintainability metrics;

(q) design loads for structural design;

(r) structural details used; shock loads used;

(s) welding requirement(s) source;

(t) build specification or requirements document used to construct parent hull (provide in a separate appendix);

(u) material type(s) for hull, superstructure, and mast; and

(v) ship manning requirements.

Please confirm that a) the original parent ship artifact formatting is acceptable if included in appendices and b) whether drawing sheets larger than 11”x17” are acceptable in appendices.

If provided,

a) Original parent ship artifact formatting is acceptable to submit as an appedix; except for drawing sheet sizes larger than 11"x17" paper;

b) Drawing sheets larger than 11"x17" paper will not be accepted.

All contractor personnel accessing classified information or material associated with and/or performing work relative to the contract must be United States citizens and shall have and maintain at a minimum a final SECRET security clearance at time of contract award.

As worded C.1.3.2. could be interpreted to mean that all contractor personnel are required to be U.S. citizens and have a minimum final SECRET clearance to work of the FFG(X) program for any work, not just classified work. Please confirm the requirement for personnel to be U.S. citizens and have a minimum final SECRET clearance only applies to those having access to classified material or performing classified work.

Recommended alternative wording (changes in bold):

C.1.3.2 All contractor personnel accessing classified information or classified material associated with and/or performing classified work relative to the contract must be United States citizens and shall have and maintain at a minimum a final SECRET security clearance at time of contract award.

Correct, the requirement for personnel to be U.S. citizens and have a minimum final SECRET clearances only applies to those personnel accessing classified information or classified material associated with and/or performing work relative to the contract.

(a) The Contractor agrees that a partial basis for award of this contract is the list of key personnel proposed. Accordingly, the Contractor agrees to assign to this contract those key persons whose resumes were submitted with the proposal necessary to fulfill the requirements of the contract. No substitution shall be made without prior notification to and concurrence of the Contracting Officer in accordance with this requirement.

Section L.1.5.1.5.2 does not require resumes to be provided for key personnel. Are resumes required in the proposal submittal and if so, can you confirm they should be part of the appendix?

Resumes are not required for the proposal. Section H Clause

5252.237-9106, Substitution of Personnel (SEP 1990) will be removed from the RFP in a future RFP Amendment.

Section L.1.2.4 states that the proposal shall be prepared in Times New Roman font size 12. Would the Navy allow the documents in the appendices to be provided in their native format?

Yes, the documents in the appendices can be provided in their native format.

If submitted, the artifacts in L.1.5.1.4.2.i can be provided in the appendix, which do not count towards the 75 page limit.

At a minimum, Offerors shall describe:

(a) displacement;

(b) margins;

(d) hydrostatics;

(e) combat capability;

(f) general arrangement;

(g) lines plan (including offsets) and hull appendages drawing; curves of form;

(h) major equipment list and associated capacities (prime movers, generators, AC plants, etc.);

(i) machinery and shafting arrangement;

(j) damage control and survivability features;

(k) speed/power information; endurance range calculation (range and speed);

(l) mass properties report (to at least 1 digit Ship Work Breakdown Structure level, including foreign Work Breakdown Structure description if nonstandard);

(m) Electric Plant Load Analysis (EPLA or equivalent);

(n) Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) and cooling load analysis;

(o) design/service life margins inherent to design;

(p) reliability/maintainability metrics;

(q) design loads for structural design;

(r) structural details used; shock loads used;

(s) welding requirement(s) source;

(t) build specification or requirements document used to construct parent hull (provide in a separate appendix);

(u) material type(s) for hull, superstructure, and mast; and

(v) ship manning requirements.

Section L.1.5.1.4.2 outlines the technical approach to adapt the parent design to meet FFG(X) requirements, including a list of design Artifacts (items a through v) to include as information on the parent design. Of these listed design artifacts, item (t) build specification or requirements document used to construct parent hull – is the only one with a note explicitly requesting it to be provided in a separate appendix. Would the Government confirm that the other 21 artifacts in the list could also be provided with the appendix?

Use of Other Than Referenced Documents-

The Contractor may propose the use of other applicable specifications or standards (Government or Industry) in lieu of those referenced. Proposals offering the use of alternatives will be considered for approval if such alternatives are determined to be cost effective and sufficient in all respects to meet performance requirements. The substitution of any other than referenced document will not automatically extend the substitution for all citations of the document.

Procedures for use of Other Than Referenced Documents:

Approval shall be obtained from NAVSEA prior to the use of other than referenced document in lieu of the requirements of the primary reference cited.

NAVSEA approval is required for proposed substitutions for sub-tier referenced documents cited for use for systems, machinery, equipment and spaces, as follows:

-Where cited for use in vital spaces

- Where designated for Grade A shock

Proposals for substitutions for primary and the above sub-tier references shall be made by letter from the Contractor to the Government. To ensure that sufficient information is available to permit evaluation of alternatives, the Contractor shall furnish all descriptive information necessary to substantiate that the alternative offered is cost effective, does not adversely affect logistic support, and is not impaired in performance, life, safety, interchangeability, maintainability, or reliability from that prescribed by the referenced specification.

It is assumed any NAVSEA approval of changes to documents identified in the RFP will be communicated to all offerors. Please confirm.

Yes, any NAVSEA approval of changes to documents identified in the RFP will be communicated to all offerors.

C.1.3.2 All contractor personnel accessing classified information or material associated with and/or performing work relative to the contract must be United

States citizens and shall have and maintain at a minimum a final SECRET security clearance at time of contract award.

Is it the intent of Section C.1.3.2 that the U.S. Citizen and SECRET security clearance requirement only applies to those contractor personnel who (i) access classified information, (ii) access classified material, or (iii) access classified material that is either associated with or necessary to perform work relative to the contract? Or is the U.S. Citizen and SECRET security clearance requirement of Section C.1.3.2 intended to apply to all contractor personnel that perform “work relative to the contract”?

Please see the response to question number 5.

If there are any discrepancies between the proposal volume hardcopies and the proposal volume disks, the electronic copy will govern. Disks shall be CD-

ROM or DVD-ROM formatted and all documents, spreadsheets, databases, or other data submitted must be compatible with Microsoft Office 2010; or Adobe Acrobat 11.0.

May the Contractor use WinZip (without compression) to password protect multiple unclassified files on the discs used for the electronic submittal? May the Contractor e-mail the password to the Contracting Officer?

No, an Offeror may not use WinZIP to password protect files, nor is the use of password protection allowed. All submitted electronic documents must remain unlocked.

The Government will make progress payments to the Contractor when requested as work progresses, but not more frequently than monthly, in amounts of

$2,500 or more approved by the Contracting Officer, under the following conditions:

(a) Computation of amounts.

(1) Unless the Contractor requests a smaller amount, the Government will compute each progress payment as 80 percent of the Contractor’s total costs incurred under this contract whether or not actually paid, plus financing payments to subcontractors (see paragraph (j) of this clause), less the sum of all previous progress payments made by the Government under this contract. The Contracting Officer will consider cost of money that would be allowable under FAR 31.205-10 as an incurred cost for progress payment purposes.

52.232-16 Progress Payments indicates billing 80% of allowable cost up to 80% of the Contract Price but does not indicate when the full price may be billed. Please confirm that after submittal of all deliverables the contractor can move forward with final billing.

Yes, after submittal of all deliverables, the contractor can proceed with final billing.

252.209-7009(b): This contract is for the performance of systems engineering and technical assistance for a major defense acquisition program or a pre-major defense acquisition program.

252.209-7009(c): Prohibition. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this clause, as required by paragraph (b)(3) of section 207 of the Weapons System

Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-23), the Contractor or any affiliate of the Contractor is prohibited from participating as a prime contractor or major subcontractor in the development or production of a weapon system under the major defense acquisition program or pre-major defense acquisition program.

DFARS 252.209-7009, by its express terms, applies only in accordance with DFARS 209.571-8(b). DFARS 209.571-

8(b) states that the clause is to be used when acquiring SETA services. And DFARS 209.571-1 defines SETA services to exclude “design and development work of design and development contractors, in accordance with FAR 9.505-2(a)(3) or FAR 9.505-2(b)(3), and the guidance at PGI 209.571-7.”

Question: (a) Based on the facts set forth above in relation to FAR 9.505-2(a)(3) and FAR 9.505-2(b)(3), is it correct to assume that DFARS 252.209-7009

(“Organizational Conflict of Interest – Major Defense Acquisition Program”) will not apply to FFG(X) development and design contractors?

(b) If the answer to (a) is “No,” will NAVSEA delete DFARS 252.209-7009 based on DFARS 209.571(ii)?

(c) If the answer to (b) is “No,” will NAVSEA separate the “design and development work” encompassed by the FFG(X) Concept Design RFP from the other work in accordance with PGI 209.571-7, which states as follows:

Because of the special organizational conflict of interest restrictions that apply to system integration and technical assistance contracts, it is more practical to separate system integration and technical assistance-type work from design- and development-type, and not to include both types of work in the same task order or other contract vehicle. (emphasis added)

Section I DFARS Clause 252.209-7009, Organizational Conflict of

Interest--Major Defense Acquisition Program (OCT 2015) and

Section L DFARS Clause 252.209-7008, Notice of Prohibition

Relating to Organizational Conflict of Interest--Major Defense

Acquisition Program (DEC 2010) will be removed from the RFP in a future RFP Amendment.

(c) It is recognized that the effort to be performed by the Contractor under this contract may create a potential organizational conflict of interest on the instant contract or on a future acquisition. In order to avoid this potential conflict of interest, and at the same time to avoid prejudicing the best interest of the Government, the right of the Contractor to participate in future procurement of equipment and/or services that are the subject of any work under this contract shall be limited as described below in accordance with the requirements of FAR 9.5.

(e) The Contractor further agrees that, during the performance of this contract and for a period of three years after completion of performance of this contract, the Contractor, any affiliate of the Contractor, any subcontractor, consultant, or employee of the Contractor, any joint venture involving the

Contractor, any entity into or with which it may subsequently merge or affiliate, or any other successor or assign of the Contractor, shall not furnish to the

United States Government, either as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor, or as a consultant to a prime contractor or subcontractor, any system, component or services which is the subject of the work to be performed under this contract.

Paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of Clause HQ C-2-0037 would prohibit any successful offeror for the FFG(X) Concept Design RFP from participating in any way in the follow-on contracts for a period of three years after contract completion, either directly or through any affiliates. FAR 9.505-2(a)(1) and (a)(2) provide for future preclusion when the contractor prepares “complete specifications” for “nondevelopmental items” and/or “nondevelopmental equipment.”

By definition, a concept development effort involves developmental items, which renders the preclusions set forth in the clause inapplicable. FAR 9.505-

2(a)(3) and FAR 9.505-2(b)(3) state, respectively, that In development work, it is normal to select firms that have done the most advanced work in the field.

These firms can be expected to design and develop around their own prior knowledge. Development contractors can frequently start production earlier and more knowledgeably than firms that did not participate in the development, and this can affect the time and quality of production, both of which are important to the Government. In many instances the Government may have financed the development. Thus, while the development contractor has a competitive advantage, it is an unavoidable one that is not considered unfair; hence no prohibition should be imposed. [FAR 9.505-2(a)(3)]

For the reasons given in 9.505-2(a)(3), no prohibitions are imposed on development and design contractors. [FAR 9.505-2(b)(3)]

FAR 9.505-2(a)(1)(i) further provides that the preclusion contemplated by FAR 9.502 “shall not apply to . . . Contractors that furnish at Government request specifications or data regarding a product they provide, even though the specifications of data may have been paid for separately or in the price of the product.” Because the FFG(X) Concept Design RFP calls for specifications or data that will likely relate to contractors’ existing ship platforms, the prohibitions of FAR 9.502 should not apply.

Finally, FAR 9.502(b) generally precludes a contractor that prepares or participates in the preparation of a work statement for a follow-on competitive procurement from participating in that procurement. However, that preclusion does not apply if the contractor “has participated in the development and design work.” FAR 9.502(b)(1)(ii).

Question: Will the Government remove HQ C-2-0037 from the RFP based on (1) the developmental nature of the work,

(2) the exception set forth in FAR 9.502(a)(1)(i), and (3) the Contractor’s participation in the development and design work and the exception set forth in

FAR 9.505-2(b)(1)(ii)?

Section C Clause HQ C-2-0037, Organizational Conflict of Interest

(NAVSEA) (JUL 2000) will be removed from the RFP in a future

RFP Amendment.

The Contractor shall develop and implement a standardization process, reducing range and increasing depth of like equipment, to enhance supportability, minimize life cycle costs, and increase system readiness and interoperability across ships/ship classes through the selection of equipment and components which are, to the maximum extent possible, (1) common within the ship, (2) common for application within the U.S. Navy Surface Ship Class and (3) common with equipment/components currently installed in U.S. Navy ships. The Contractor shall utilize both Industry (e.g., the Common Parts Catalog) and Government (e.g., the Hull, Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Data Research System (HEDRS)) tools in implementing the standardization program across shipbuilders.

Is it the expectation to include the use of Virtual Shelf as part of Standardization efforts during the design, though it is not called out as part of HQ C-2-

0052 Standardization (NAVSEA) (JAN 2008).

Yes, the Navy encourages the use of the Virtual Shelf as part of the

Standardization efforts during design.

Section K - Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE…

252.227-7017 Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions JAN 2011

252.227-7028 Technical Data or Computer Software Previously Delivered to the Government JUN 1995

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

L.1.5.1.4.2 At a minimum, Offerors shall describe:

iv. Data Rights. Data rights are needed by the Government in order to sustain, maintain, upgrade, and modernize FFG(X) ships. Offeror shall propose data rights to the extent necessary to understand and develop training, operation, maintenance, sustainment, and modernization strategies for the ship and ship systems.

Would the Government please confirm that the intended location for a discrete list of data rights assertions made in accordance with Section K clauses

252.227-7017, 252.227-7028, and 52.227-15 should be included in the Price Proposal Volume II Section 1.2 Section K “Representation, Certifications and

Other Statements of Offerors”?

Would the Government allow the Offeror to provide the discrete list of data rights assertions in the Technical Volume Appendix?

For 252.227-7017 and 252.227-7028, Data Rights assertions and list shall be included in the Price Proposal.

Please note that the Data Rights Section K requirements are different from the requirements of Section L.1.5.1.4.2, paragraph

(iv), Data Rights. DFARS clauses (252.227-7017 and 252.227-

7028) relate to the Conceptual Design contract deliverables.

Section L.1.5.1.4.2, paragraph (iv), Data Rights, requires Offerors to propose the data rights approach/strategy to maintain, sustain, and modernize Frigate ships and ship systems for follow-on

DD&C. The RFP will be amended to clarify this.

Proposals shall be prepared on standard 8-1/2” by 11” paper, single-spaced. The Offeror’s company name and solicitation number shall appear at the top of each page. A date shall be placed on each page of the proposal corresponding to the date of the initial proposal. Any pages that may be revised as a result of discussions shall contain revision numbers and dates. Every paragraph, figure, and table shall be numbered. The font shall be Times New Roman with a font size of 12 in Standard English. Pages shall have a one-inch margin, single line spacing set at 1 with spacing before and after paragraphs set at –0– and left aligned paragraphs. Type font size for foldouts or other pages may not be smaller than size 12. For text embedded in graphic portions of the proposal, the type font size may be any readable font type and size. Text located outside graphic portions of a sheet shall be Times New Roman with a font size of 12.

A page is defined as a typed page of the proposal document, i.e. one sheet of paper with typing on one side. Pages may have typing on two sides, but for the purposes of the page count limitation, each side with content will be counted as one page. Foldouts shall fold from left to right (sideways), shall not exceed

11” by 17” and shall count as two pages. Foldouts may be used for diagrams, charts, or graphic material only that could not be depicted otherwise on standard 8-1/2” by 11” paper.

Would the Government confirm the Section L.1.2.4 formatting instructions apply only to the Technical Proposal Volume and items in the Price Proposal

Volume can be provided in a legible manner in their native format?

If not, would the Government modify the Section L instructions to read as follows?

The General formatting requirements stated in L.1.2.4 are to be followed to the maximum extent possible in the Price Proposal volume with exceptions limited to the following:

• Chapter 1 format is to be based on the format provided in the RFP modified to accommodate the required fill-ins.

• Chapter 2 format for content such as subcontractor quotes and reports generated in their native format are acceptable provided they are legible

Formating described in Section L.1.2.4 shall apply to the Price

Proposal as well. However, subcontractor quotes and reports can be generated in their native format, provided they are legible.

File details come from the government source that posted it.