PPSC_051-073.pdf

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

N61340-18-R-1199, Attachment 6

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Small Business Utilization

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Regarding small business utilization evaluation, how will a company be assessed if the contracts provided as past performance references are all small business NAICS awards?

REFERENCE: (PWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) Section M

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government will consider contract references performed by Small Business (i.e., the referenced contract was assigned a NAICS code and corresponding size standard for which the prime contractor qualified as small) for evaluation to determine if they are compliant with the Small Business Utilization requirements of FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9.

Please see the final solicitation for any subsequent revisions.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-051

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SUBJECT: QUESTION ABOUT JVs

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Q: Section M, 1.3.1 (d) of the Subject referenced DPWS. When considering a JV on a Contract Reference, is the required Annualized dollar value of aircraft maintenance computed on the entire JV contract value or is it calculated separately for the Managing Partner (Prime) and the Member (Sub).

REFERENCE: Section M, Technical

PAGE NUMBER: 83 PARAGRAPH: 1.3.1. (d)

A contract reference performed by a Joint Venture will be considered for evaluation provided the proposed JV is the same JV that performed the contract reference. Consideration of contract references is for the JV itself and not the individual members (the JV is a different entity than the individual members of a JV).

Please see the final solicitation for requirements.

As point of clarification, the Draft Performance Work Statement (DPWS) does not contain section M.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-052

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SUBJECT: QUESTION ABOUT JVs

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Q: Section M, 1.3.1 (a) of the Subject referenced DPWS. Will the Government consider the Managing Partner of a Joint Venture (JV) the “Prime” for purposes of submitting the JV effort as a Contract Reference?

REFERENCE: Section M, Technical

PAGE NUMBER: 83 PARAGRAPH: 1.3.1. (a)

A contract reference performed by a Joint Venture will be considered for evaluation provided the proposed JV is the same JV that performed the contract reference. Consideration of contract references is for the JV itself and not the individual members (the JV is a different entity than the individual members of a JV).

Please see the final solicitation for requirements.

As point of clarification, the Draft Performance Work Statement (DPWS) does not contain section M.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-053

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SUBJECT: Past Performance at the task order level

SPECIFIC QUESTION: RFP Section L 1.3.2.a states that past performance in doing similar aircraft maintenance services for other services (e.g. Army, Air Force) is relevant experience for the MAC solicitation. Please clarify the intent on past performance at the task order level, if that same relevancy criteria will apply. In the past, the Navy has been overly restrictive in prescribing that only similar size and scope doing NAMP 4790.2 type maintenance is highly relevant on procurements such as T-45, TH-57, as examples. By prescribing criteria such as only 4790 type maintenance experience supporting 200 training aircraft at a single location can be rated highly relevant, that infers that only a current incumbent is able to score the highest rating. Recommend that you use similar language to L.1.3.2 at the task order level.

REFERENCE: (PWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) Section L 1.3.2

PAGE NUMBER: 79 PARAGRAPH:

The CMMARS MAC evaluation criteria identified in Section L, Element 1.3.2.a reflects the experience needed to perform at least one of the potential task orders (TOs) and applies only at the MAC level. The Government intends to release a Fair

Opportunity Submission Request (FOSR) for each of TOs in the CMMARS MAC with separate and unique evaluation criteria tailored to the requirements identified for each TO. The specific evaluation factors and criteria will vary depending upon the scope and requirements and may include prerequisites. FOSRs may or may not use similar factors and criteria to previous solicitations (e.g., Past Performance, Corporate Experience, Technical). Cost/Price will always be an evaluation factor. The Government will take the comment into consideration.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-054

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SUBJECT: Aircraft Maintenance Requirements

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

In this section, the government requires modifications of US Military aircraft where the entire aircraft platform is inducted.

Does the government consider Commercial Derivative Military Aircraft (CDMA) as an applicable US Military aircraft?

REFERENCE: DRFP

PAGE NUMBER: 79 PARAGRAPH: Section 1.3.2(b)

Yes, the Government considers Commercial Derivative Military Aircraft (CDMA) applicable US Military aircraft.

Please see solicitation for final requirements.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-056

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SUBJECT: Use of different physical locations/CAGE codes between MAC IDIQ responses and subsequent Task Order responses

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

The CMMARS DRFP (Sec M I General Information) states “To be eligible for a CMMARS Task Order award, the Offeror must be a CMMARS MAC awardee.” Section L Part B para 1.2.2 of the DRFP states “All current CAGE Codes/DUNS must appear in Table T-1 (Offeror Summary) which indicates a commitment of work for those entities.” Will future

CMMARS task orders be awarded to only the CAGE Codes/DUNS summarized in the CMMARS MAC IDIQ proposal?

Example: Contractor A does aircraft B, C and D maintenance work at facility X (CAGE Code X), Y (CAGE Code Y) and

Z (CAGE Code Z). Contractor A is evaluated and becomes a MAC awardee based on work performed at X, Y and

Z. Contractor A, a MAC Awardee, proposes to perform a future task order for aircraft E and F maintenance at facility P

(CAGE Code P) and Q (CAGE Code Q). Can future task orders be awarded to MAC Awardee Contractor A if work is proposed a facility other than X, Y and Z?

REFERENCE: DRFP Sec M (I) and (II)

PAGE NUMBER: 83 of 84 PARAGRAPH: 1.3.1b

The Government is currently taking this recommendation under consideration and does not anticipate changes to Sections L and M with respect to CAGE codes at this time. An update to this question will be provided once a final decision has been reached. Please see the solicitation for final requirements.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-057

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SUBJECT: CMMARS Draft RFP Recommendation

SPECIFIC QUESTION: Draft RFP Section L, Part B, Paragraph 1.2.2 on page 73 under Contract Summary Table states “

For the Technical evaluation, contract references with a different CAGE code/DUNS than the proposed entity identified in

Table T-1 (Offeror Summary) will only be considered if the CAGE code/DUNS was created as a result of a corporate acquisition, reorganization, merger, or other administrative reason and refer to the same division in the same physical location for where the work is being performed or from where the work is being directed. All current CAGE Codes/DUNS must appear in Table T-1 (Offeror Summary) which indicates a commitment of work for those entities. The Offeror shall provide a written explanation if multiple CAGE codes/DUNS for the same physical location are applicable to one entity.

The description shall include all changes in the organization as a result of a corporate acquisition, reorganization, merger, or other administrative reason and explain how the changes impact the relevance of any contract references provided.”

For large businesses, such as major defense prime contractors, it is common for the corporate entity to have a designated

CAGE / DUNS code, and each of its business units that report to the Corporate entity to have one of several CAGE / DUNS

Codes. In most cases, the corporate CAGE/DUNS Code is not the one used to establish program contracts with the customer, it is the business unit CAGE / DUNS Codes where the majority of the contracts / work executed are assigned, depending on its Corporate structure, some of which have been established due to merger and acquisition actions, but many which have grown organically over time. The way the instructions are currently constructed makes it difficult or impossible to leverage the breadth and depth of corporate experience as a single company under a single CAGE/DUNS Code for a large business constructed in this manner, without making an allowance for multiple principle entities under that corporate umbrella, similar to the allowance for JV members as principle entities under the JV construct guidelines.

Recommend language be included in Section L, Part B, Section 1 that allows for the inclusion of multiple Principle Entities for those large businesses that hold multiple CAGE/DUNS Codes operating under the determined NAICS Code, with the recommendation of a written explanation of the relationship of the Principle Entities to the Corporation be defined in the form of a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter, as used in other similar IDIQ vehicles. Additionally, recommend

Tables T-1 and T-2 be modified to allow the Prime Offeror to use its overarching corporate CAGE / DUNS code as the

Prime Offeror code, and its appropriate business unit CAGE / DUNS Codes as annotated in the Meaningful Relationship

Commitment Letter as Principle Entities for use in providing the requirements to meet acceptable standards of experience required in Section M.

For example:

Large defense prime “ACME” is a multi-sector entity with distinct CAGE/DUNS Codes across multiple locations

(CONUS/OCONUS). Contracts are routinely awarded and executed under CAGE/DUNS Codes separate and distinct from the overarching ACME CAGE/DUNS Code. For performance on large IDIQ contracts like and similar in nature to

CMMARS, ACME has provided the government a “Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter” of the various

CAGE/DUNS which defines the relationships and experience between Corporate and functional entities. The corporate entity CAGE/DUNS Code established the company as the Prime Offeror, and the Principle Entities (business units) CAGE

/ DUNS Codes (under which specific programs usually have the contracts let for execution) provide the experience across the corporate entity.

REFERENCE: Draft RFP

PAGE NUMBER: 73 PARAGRAPH: Section L, Part B, para 1.2.2

The Government is currently taking this recommendation under consideration and does not anticipate changes to Sections L and M with respect to CAGE codes at this time. An update to this question will be provided once a final decision has been reached. Please see the solicitation for final requirements.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-058

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SPECIFIC QUESTION: Draft RFP Section L, Part B, para 1.3.5 Small Business Utilization states what documentation shall be provided for each contract submitted to show small business utilization and Section M, Part B II, para 1.3.5 states

“Small Business Utilization will assess the Offeror’s compliance with the small business requirements of FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 on the contracts/orders identified in Section L, Table T-3. Data provided in the SF 294/Individual

Subcontracting Reports (ISRs), CPARS ratings for Small Business Utilization, and/or DCMA Form 640 Reviews (Review of Contractor’s Comprehensive Subcontracting Program) may be utilized to assess compliance”.

The evaluation criteria is not clear as to what is being evaluated. Is the compliance with the small business requirements established for that particular contract vehicle being evaluated as a pass fail, with a passing grade (either by SF294 compliance, CPARS rating on small business utilization or DCMA Form 640 Review), or if it is to meet the DoD’s

Subcontracting Goals for 2018 as stated in Section L, PART B-2, para c. Request clarification on the evaluation criteria, and recommend evaluation be conducted as to whether the contractor met its small business goals for that contract, as requirements for an individual contract may not have the same requirements as the overarching goals for FY18.

PAGE NUMBER: 78 PARAGRAPH: Section L, Part B-1 para 1.3.5; B-2 para c; Section M, Part B-II, para 1.3.5

“Compliance” means: an approved subcontracting plan has been submitted that conforms to the requirements of FAR

52.219-9(d), the Offeror has made a good faith effort to achieve the goals set forth in the approved Subcontracting Plan, and the required subcontracting reports were submitted in a timely manner.

For Offerors NOT covered by a Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan, compliance will be assessed by reviewing the data found in the SF294/Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs)and CPARS data for Small Business Utilization as it pertains to the particular contract reference being assessed. For Offerors covered by a Comprehensive Subcontracting plan, compliance will be assessed at the corporate, division, or plant-wide basis (as designated by the approved Comprehensive

Subcontracting Plan) by reviewing the data found in SF295/Summary Subcontracting Reports (SSRs) and/or DCMA Form

640 Report.

The DoD Small Business Subcontracting Goals provided in Section L, Part B, para 2.3 are for use as placeholders in the

CMMARS Basic Contract Individual Subcontracting Plan; these goals are not to be used as a measure of evaluation against

Section M, Part B, Technical Factor criteria 1.2.5.

Please see the solicitation for final requirements.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-059

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SPECIFIC QUESTION: Draft RFP Section L, Part B, para 1.3.2 Aircraft Maintenance Experience Requirements states

“Performed aviation platform maintenance in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (e.g., 14 CFR Parts 21, or 43, or, 91, or 145); or Department of Defense Instructions (Navy (e.g., COMANVAIRFORINST 4790.2 series, or

NAVAIRINST 3710.G); or Air Force (e.g., AFI-21-101, AFI 21-102, AFI 10-220 IP); or Army (e.g., AR 95-1, AR 7062, AR 385-10, AR 750-6, AR 95-20)); or DCMA INST 8210.1C;

Recommend that the reference to “DCMA INST 8210.1C” be replaced with “DCMA INST 8210.1 Series” similar to the reference for “COMANVAIRFORINST 4790.2 series” cited earlier in the paragraph as potential contractors may wish to cite relevant contracts that were let prior to the release of DCMA INST 8210.1C.

PAGE NUMBER: 79 PARAGRAPH: Section L, Part B para 1.3.2(a)

The Government intends to update Sections L and M to refer to series (e.g., DCMA INST 8210.1 Series, COMANVAIRFORINST 4790.2 series, NAVAIRINST 3710.1 series).

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PSC - 060

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SUBJECT: Contract References

Section L, PART B, paragraph 1.3 Evaluation Elements states: “A contract reference is defined as a single award contract, or in the case of a multiple award contract or basic ordering agreement, a contract reference is a task order, delivery order, or orders; do not provide a contract reference to the basic contract.”

For a multiple award contract such as the US Air Force Contract Field Team contract can a summary of the totality of delivery orders be provided as a single reference vice providing 25+ references?

REFERENCE: (PWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) Draft RFP

PAGE NUMBER: 74 PARAGRAPH: Section L, PART B, Paragraph 1.3 Evaluation Elements

The Government is currently taking this recommendation under consideration. A final response to this question will be provided once a decision has been reached. Please see the solicitation for final requirements.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-061

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SUBJECT: Table T-3

Section L, Part B, Paragraph 1.3, second sentence states: “Only include a contract reference that meets all of the requirements identified in 1.3.1 (Contract Reference Requirements),….”

If we are using a task order from a multiple award contract, the annual dollar value may not reach $10M, one of the requirements in 1.3.1. Are we precluded from using these individual task orders as a contract reference?

REFERENCE: (PWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) Draft RFP

PAGE NUMBER: 74 PARAGRAPH: 1.3 Evaluation Elements

The Government is currently taking this recommendation under consideration. A response to this question will be provided once a decision has been reached. Please see the solicitation for final requirements.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-062

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SUBJECT: CAGE Code and DUNS number of prime offeror

Section L, Part B Specific Instructions states that “For the Technical evaluation, contract references with a different CAGE code/DUNS than the proposed entity identified in Table T-1 (Offeror Summary) will only be considered if the CAGE code/DUNS was created as a result of a corporate acquisition, reorganization, merger, or other administrative reason and refer to the same division in the same physical location for where the work is being performed or from where the work is being directed”

We understand the legitimate concern regarding maintaining the same management team associated with the contract reference (s) will also be managing the CMMARS effort; however, relying on the physical location associated with the

CAGE code DOES NOT provide such assurance. In fact, for many companies the CAGE Codes are for administrative purposes only with the actual work being performed and managed by units located at other locations, so an offeror could show the same CAGE and CAGE address but the work could be performed and managed by an entirely different team than the team that executed the contract references.

Will the USG change the requirement for the CAGE and physical location to a requirement to show the organization managing and performing the contract references are the same as the organization that will manage and perform the

CMMARS effort? Sample language below for your consideration.

For the Technical evaluation, contract references with a different CAGE code/DUNS than the proposed entity identified in Table T-1 (Offeror Summary) will only be considered if the offeror can demonstrate that the organization managing and performing the contract references are the same as the organization that will manage and perform the CMMARS effort.

REFERENCE: Schedule L

PAGE NUMBER: 73 PARAGRAPH: 1.2.2

The Government is currently taking this recommendation under consideration and does not anticipate to make changes to

Sections L and M with respect to CAGE codes at this time. An update to this question will be provided once a final decision has been reached. Please see the solicitation for final requirements.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-063

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SUBJECT: Web-based Information System (WIS) clarification

SPECIFIC QUESTION: Will the final RFP, or individual Task Orders specify 1 (or more) Government approved Web-based Information System(s) from which contractors should choose?

Discussion: Currently the PWS specifies general WIS requirements, but does not address interface architecture requirements and presents the opportunity for various stovepipe & proprietary solutions. Failure to specify a specific system increases risk and cost, particularly during transition. There are currently available government approved WIS which satisfy the basic PWS requirements, such as Maximo Aviation. We recommend the government specify 1 or more

Web-based Information Systems that contractors must use that are known to seamlessly interconnect / share required data.

REFERENCE: CMMARS PWS Rev1 20180426

PAGE NUMBER: 17 PARAGRAPH: 6.13

No, the Government will not specify an approved Web-based Information System (WIS) in the CMMARS solicitation.

The Government will take this recommendation under consideration when developing/reviewing the unique requirements for each task order.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-065

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SUBJECT: Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) License Agreement

SPECIFIC QUESTION: Will the government provide a standard process by which offerors can obtain license agreements for OEM proprietary data required to satisfactorily meet contract requirements?

Discussion: Currently the PWS states that contractors must secure license agreements to obtain access to required OEM proprietary data. Recommend the government specify a process by which OEMs provide necessary data, such as the government obtain licensing agreements with OEM’s that are transferrable to Task Order awardees in order to normalize costs to all offerors.

REFERENCE: CMMARS PWS Rev1 20180426

PAGE NUMBER: 11 PARAGRAPH: 5.4.a

The Government will take this recommendation under consideration when developing/reviewing the unique requirements for each task order. The Government does not intend to provide a standard process in the CMMARS PWS due to the varying requirements for obtaining OEM proprietary data license agreements for each Task Order.

PWS paragraph 5.4.a states, “when applicable in the individual Task Orders, the contractor shall obtain OEM proprietary data license agreements for the access and use of OEM proprietary data for CDMA and GOCA, including terms and conditions under which the contractor and associate contractors agree to exchange such proprietary information to meet site-specific requirements.”

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-066

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SUBJECT: Teaming

SPECIFIC QUESTION: In the interest of maximizing competition, would the Government consider the aggregate experience from the members of a team in order to qualify a Prime without having a JV entity established, if the team is established for the purpose of creating a qualifying Offeror to execute an award to the Prime?

REFERENCE: (PWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) N6134018R1199 DRFP_20180426

PAGE NUMBER: 79 PARAGRAPH: 1.3.4

No, the Government will not consider the aggregate experience from the members of a team in order to qualify a Prime without having a JV entity legally established. As defined by Section L PART A.1 of the solicitation, “an ‘Offeror’ is defined as the Prime contractor with its CAGE code identified in Block 15A on Standard Form (SF) 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. A “Joint Venture” (JV) is a partnership or teaming arrangement between two or more companies that form a separate legal entity to propose as a Prime contractor for the purpose of responding to this solicitation.” A team is not considered an Offeror as they will not be able to submit a proposal under a single CAGE code.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-067

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SUBJECT: Joint Ventures

SPECIFIC QUESTION: 1.2.3 states, “Additionally, if applicable, the Offeror shall provide documentation demonstrating the JV is a legal entity.” Does “if applicable” indicate that a JV need not be a legal entity to be an Offeror?

PAGE NUMBER: 75 PARAGRAPH: 1.2.3

No, a JV must be a legal entity as defined by Section L PART A.1 of the solicitation: “Offeror” is defined as the Prime contractor with its CAGE code identified in Block 15A on Standard Form (SF) 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. A ‘Joint

Venture’ (JV) is a partnership or teaming arrangement between two or more companies that form a separate legal entity to propose as a Prime contractor for the purpose of responding to this solicitation.”

The “Additionally, if applicable” indicated that the documentation would only be required if the Offeror responding to the solicitation is for a JV. If it is for a Prime, then no documentation demonstrating the JV is a legal entity is required.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-068

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SUBJECT: Aircraft Maintenance Requirement

SPECIFIC QUESTION: In the interest of promoting competition and Small Business opportunities, would the Government consider reducing the dollar threshold per 1.3.1.d. and the other size thresholds per 1.3.2.b. and changing the word “and” at the end of 1.3.2.a. to “and/or” in both Section L and Section M? If not, would the Government consider the aggregate of multiple task orders under an existing contract vehicle to support the thresholds?

PAGE NUMBER: 78, 79 and 84 PARAGRAPH: 1.3.1, 1.3.2 in Section L Part B and also in Section M Part B

The Government will not reduce the threshold of 1.3.1.d; however, the parts/material restriction has been removed.

The Government will not reduce the values under 1.3.2.b; please see the response to PSC–003 for additional background information.

The Government will not change the word “and” at the end of 1.3.2.a. to “and/or” in both Section L and Section M.

In response to “would the Government consider the aggregate of multiple task orders under an existing contract vehicle to support the thresholds?”; The Government is currently taking this recommendation under consideration. A response to this question will be provided once a decision is reached.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-069

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SUBJECT: Contract Summary Table

SPECIFIC QUESTION: 1.2.2 allows for “other administrative reason.” In the interest of promoting competition and Small

Business opportunities in the formation of Offerors in time to meet the timetable for award and of qualifying size of past performance, would the Government consider a Teaming Arrangement between multiple entities having multiple

CAGE/DUNS codes as qualifying as an “other administrative reason” in lieu of a JV that is a legal entity or can the

Government accept multiple CAGE/DUNS codes in cases where companies were recently acquired by other companies?

PAGE NUMBER: 74, 78, 83, 84 PARAGRAPH: 1.2.2, 1.3.1, 1.3.2 in Section L Part B and 1.3.1 , 1.3.2 in

Section M Part B

Teaming Arrangements - No, the Government will not consider Teaming Arrangement between multiple entities having multiple CAGE/DUNS codes as qualifying as an “other administrative reason”. As defined by Section L PART A.1 of the solicitation, “an ‘Offeror’ is defined as the Prime contractor with its CAGE code identified in Block 15A on Standard Form

(SF) 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. A “Joint Venture” (JV) is a partnership or teaming arrangement between two or more companies that form a separate legal entity to propose as a Prime contractor for the purpose of responding to this solicitation.” A team is not considered an Offeror as they would not be able to submit a proposal under a single CAGE code.

Recent Acquisition - The Government cannot provide a definitive assessment prior to evaluation. As defined by Section L

PART A.1 “contract references with a different CAGE code/DUNS than the proposed entity identified in Table T-1

(Offeror Summary) will only be considered if the CAGE code/DUNS was created as a result of a corporate acquisition, reorganization, merger, or other administrative reason and refer to the same division in the same physical location for where the work is being performed or from where the work is being directed.”

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-070

PREPARED BY: DATE:

SUBJECT: Contract Reference

Industry would like Government to consider the option of referencing a contract at the Basic Contract/Basic Ordering

Agreement level versus at the task order, delivery order, or order. Industry strongly believes that this option will foster more competition as it allows industry to showcase a cumulative level of experience and past performance that involves complexity and magnitude in scope across various task orders executed simultaneously.

Is there a specific instruction for listing of task orders in Table T-2 on form L-1?

REFERENCE: CMMARS DRFP 20180426

PAGE NUMBER: 74 PARAGRAPH: 1.3

The Government is currently taking this recommendation under consideration. An update to this question will be provided once a final decision has been reached. Please see the solicitation for final requirements.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: PPSC-073

PREPARED BY: DATE: