DLM QAs 29 March 2022.pdf

Document

(SOW, RFP, Attachment) Reference Paragraph Industry Question Government Reponse

60 Solicitation

Section L - Volume 2, Item 2.1

Authorization Letter(s) (page 92 of 114 Amendment 0001)

The Government is requesting a signed "Release of Adverse Past Performance Authorization Letter" which will be provided within Annex B.

Question: Does the Government have a desired format/template to provide to Offerors to use?

No. There is no desired format for the letter. Contractor format is acceptable.

61 Solicitation

Section L - Part A General

Instructions (page 83 of 114

Amendment 0001) Item e. (iv) and 2.2 Relevant Contract Data

(page 92 of 114 Amendment

0001)

In regard to Aggregated DO/TOs (i.e., two or more) - Section L - Part A General Instructions, item e. iv provides that "The Offeror may aggregate DO/TOs under one contract reference to meet the relevancy criteria as defined in Section M.

In addition Section 2.2 - Relevant Contract Data - states that "For Aggregation, the Offeror may use one reference number/PP-1 tab for multiple D.O.s/T.O.s if they are the same work effort and performed under the same

CPAR.

Question: Will the Government please provide confirmation that DOs/TOs that are reported under the same CPAR, maybe combined within the PP-1 Tab, but should also delineate the DO/TO reference numbers within column 6 within PP-1 for that Contract.

The Government confirms that that DOs/TOs that are reported under the same

CPAR, maybe combined within the PP-1 Tab, but should also delineate the

DO/TO reference numbers within column 6 within PP-1 for that Contract.

62 RFP

Section L 2.0 Volume 2 - Past

Performance

In relevant portions of Question #31, as published in the Q&A dated 04 March 2022, industry inquired as follows: “Will the Government please confirm that each individual JV team member is not required to submit relevant contracts if the JV is pre-existing, and not specifically formed to propose on a particular solicitation?” and “Will the Government please confirm that past performance from only one JV team member is acceptable for establishing an overall performance confidence rating for the JV Offeror?”. The Government provided the following answers respectively:

The Government does not confirm that each individual JV team member is not required to submit relevant contracts if the JV is pre-existing, and not specifically formed to propose on a particular solicitation. The

Government requires that the JV, and each JV Team Member shall each provide up to five (5) relevant contracts, if available. Please monitor SAM.gov for updates/changes to the RFP.

The Government does not confirm that the past performance for one JV team member is acceptable for establishing an overall performance confidence rating for the JV offeror. Per Section M, the Past Performane

[sic] assessment will "address the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort based on the Offeror’s (including principal entities’) relevant past performance and systemic improvement."

Q: Can the Government please confirm and clarify with regards to the above questions and answers that it will assess a JV’s past performance in the aggregate by crediting the JV overall with past performance assessments attributable to a single JV member, when appropriate, consistent with 8(a) regulatory requirements at 13 CFR 124.513(f), which states (emphasis added):

When evaluating the capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems, and certifications of an entity submitting an offer for an 8(a) contract as a joint venture established pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. A procuring activity may not require the 8(a) Participant to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience , business systems, and certifications necessary to perform the contract .

Q: If the Government can confirm the above, will the Government revise Section “M” to clarify that a JV’s past performance will be evaluated in the aggregate, that each JV member’s past performance will not be evaluated separately, and that each JV member will not be required individually to meet overall evaluation criteria (whether or not such JV has been specifically formed for this procurement)?

The Government evaluation will comply with 13 CFR 124.513(f) and 13 C.F.R.

§ 125.8(e).

63 RFP

Section L 2.0 Volume 2 - Past

Performance

In relevant portions of Question #31, as published in the Q&A dated 04 March 2022, industry inquired as follows: “Will the Government please confirm that each individual JV team member is not required to submit relevant contracts if the JV is pre-existing, and not specifically formed to propose on a particular solicitation?” and “Will the Government please confirm that past performance from only one JV team member is acceptable for establishing an overall performance confidence rating for the JV Offeror?”. The Government provided the following answers respectively:

The Government does not confirm that each individual JV team member is not required to submit relevant contracts if the JV is pre-existing, and not specifically formed to propose on a particular solicitation. The

Government requires that the JV, and each JV Team Member shall each provide up to five (5) relevant contracts, if available. Please monitor SAM.gov for updates/changes to the RFP.

The Government does not confirm that the past performance for one JV team member is acceptable for establishing an overall performance confidence rating for the JV offeror. Per Section M, the Past Performane

[sic] assessment will "address the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort based on the Offeror’s (including principal entities’) relevant past performance and systemic improvement."

Q: Can the Government please confirm and clarify with regards to the above questions and answers that it will assess a JV’s past performance in the aggregate by crediting the JV overall with past performance assessments attributable to a single JV member, when appropriate, consistent with 8(a) regulatory requirements at 13 CFR 124.513(f), which states (emphasis added):

When evaluating the capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems, and certifications of an entity submitting an offer for an 8(a) contract as a joint venture established pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. A procuring activity may not require the 8(a) Participant to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience , business systems, and certifications necessary to perform the contract .

Q: If the Government can confirm the above, will the Government revise Section “M” to clarify that a JV’s past performance will be evaluated in the aggregate, that each JV member’s past performance will not be evaluated separately, and that each JV member will not be required individually to meet overall evaluation criteria (whether or not such JV has been specifically formed for this procurement)?

The Government evaluation will comply with 13 CFR 124.513(f) and 13 C.F.R.

§ 125.8(e).

DLM_Attachment_5_Level of

Effort Ordering Period _ Labor Category

With the release of amendment 1 on 7 March 2022 the labor category "Logs and Records Tech" was changed to "Logs and Records Tech Indirect" at K-Bay, North Island, and Yuma

Q: Was it the governments intent for the offeror to price this labor category at those locations in our indirect cost buildup?

The Government has amended attachment 5 to remove the word "indirect" from the "Logs and Records Tech" labor category. All labor categories in Attachment

5 shall be priced in the direct cost buildup. Please monitor SAM.gov for updates/changes to the RFP.

L-4, Instructions Tab, Instructions for Subcontractors

Item 1 on row 25, Item 11 on row

Row references appear to be incorrect per the instructions.

Item 1 - Row 25 Is -"Replace Prime Contractor with Subcontractor in A7, A8, A13, and A20"

Should be - "Replace Prime Contractor with Subcontractor in A7, A8, A18, and A25"

Item 11 - Row 35 Is - "Delete rows 22 - 48"

Should be - "Delete rows 27 - 53"

Question - Can the government confirm that the above corrections are appropriate? If not, will the Government provide the correct references?

Please monitor SAM.gov for updates/changes to the RFP

L-4, Instructions Tab, Instructions for Subcontractors Row 35

The deletion of these rows removes the Fixed Fee rows. In which rows should the subcontractor include the fee dollars for proposed labor through G&A?

Please monitor SAM.gov for updates/changes to the RFP

RFP Section M, II, A. Past

Performance

A. Past Performance, bottom paragraph of page 108, 2nd sentence

REQUEST: In Section M.II.A. Past Performance, please delete the second sentence, "Subcontractor performance will not be evaluated as part of the Past Performance Evaluation."

REASON: This sentence is an artifact from the draft RFP; the final RFP includes Principal Subcontractors in the definition of Principal Entities that will be considered in the Past Performance or Corporate Experience evaluations.

Please monitor SAM.gov for updates/changes to the RFP

DLM+Attachment+2+-

+Trade+Specialties Work Lead and Team Lead entries Please confirm that "Work Lead" as used in Attachment 2 and "Team Lead" as used in Attachment 5 and Section L, B, 4.5.2 Labor Hours table refer to the same position.

Government confirms these are the same position. The Government verified that

Attachment 2, Attachment 5 and Section L, B, 4.5.2 Labor Hours all refer to

"Team Lead"

RFP Section B-1 and DLM

Att. 5 Level of Effort

Table of Composite Fully

Burdened Rates

REQUEST: Please confirm that the Fully Burdened Rates, Exclusive of Fee in the RFP Section B-1 should include a rate that blends in the rates for both the Regular Hours and the 2nd Shift Hours reported on Attachment 5

Level of Effort.

REASON: Each 2nd shift hour includes a premium of $0.75 in accordance with the CBAs.

Please monitor SAM.gov for updates/changes to the RFP

RFP Section L, Part A, Table G-

3 Proposal Structure

Suggested Pages for Volume 3

Technical

REQUEST: Section L, Part A, Table G-3 Proposal Structure lists the Suggested Pages for Volume 3 Technical as 75 pages. Please confirm that the evaluators will review all pages including those in excess of the suggested value.

REASON: We estimate it will take 100 pages or more to adequately address the required topics.

The page count was a suggested one and the Government intends to evaluate all pages submitted for each proposal.

RFP Section L, B, 4.5.2 Labor

Hours and DLM Att 12

Collective Bargaining

Agreement between Aircraft

Readiness Alliance, LLC and the Union for NAS North

Island, MCAS Miramar &

MCAS Camp Pendleton

All Articles and Appendices

(specifically Appendix A

"Wages")

BACKGROUND: The solicitation includes three CBAs that cover NAS North Island. Attachment 12 covers the agreement between the prime contractor Aircraft Readiness Alliance, LLC and the Union. Attachments 9 and

15 cover agreements between other entities and the Union.

QUESTION: It is understood that the CBA between the prime contractor and the Union (Att. 12) takes precedence. Therefore, offerors shall bid the labor hours for NAS North Island, MCAS Miramar, and MCAS Camp

Pendleton in RFP Section L, B, 4.5.2 in accordance with the rates, terms, and benefits outlined in the prime contractor CBA (Attachment 12). Is this understanding correct?

Please monitor SAM.gov for updates/changes to the RFP

RFP Section L, B, 4.5.2 Labor

Hours and DLM Att 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Collective Bargaining

Agreements

All Articles and Appendices

(specifically Appendix A

"Wages")

Through a comparative analysis of the position naming conventions in the various CBAs and a review of the Attachment 2 Trade Specialties descriptions, it was determined that the contract labor categories in RFP Section

L, B, 4.5.2 that are listed below all map into the CBA job category that is variously titled "Aircraft Mechanic II (Machinist/Electrician/Sheet Metal/Fuel)" or "Aircraft Mechanic II (All disciplines)" or "Aircraft Mechanic II" or "Aircraft Mechanic":

(1) Electrician, Maintenance (23160)

(2) Aircraft Rubber Equipment Repairer (Fuel Cell Mechanic) (23311)

(3) Precision Measurement Equipment Calibrator – Instrument Mechanic (23460)

(4) Aircraft Machinist (Machinist) (23550)

(5) Pneudraulic Systems Mechanic (23820)

(6) Welder (23960) [SCA Directory of Occupations alternate title: Aerospace Structural Welder]

Is it correct that offerors shall map the above contract labor categories to the CBA Aircraft Mechanic II category?

As per Secion L, 4.3(c), The Offeror shall identify whether the labor rates proposed are FPRAs, CBAs, AWDs, ACO/DCAA recommended rates (FPRRs), or Offeror proposed rates (FPRPs). However, if CBA calls out specific labor category and SCA wage, reference CBA rates. If CBA does not contain job category or SCA code, use current DOL SCA WD rates.

RFP Section L, B, 4.5.2 Labor

Hours

Kaneohe Bay, HI Logs & Records

Clerk

Given that there is no current CBA for Kaneohe Bay, it is understood that offerors shall bid the Logs & Records Clerk at Kaneohe Bay against the applicable SCA WD 15-5689, Rev. 16, 12/27/2021, Occupation Code and

Title: 23019 Aircraft Logs and Records Technician. Is this understanding correct?

As per Section L, 4.3(c), the Offeror shall propose in compliance at a minimum, with the current hourly rate set forth in the Department of Labor Wage

Determination as applicable.

RFP Section L, B, 4.5.2 Labor

Hours and DLM Att 11 CBA

Yuma

Yuma, AZ Logs & Records Clerk Given that the current CBA for Yuma, AZ does not cover the Logs & Records Clerk, it is understood that the Logs & Records Clerk at Yuma, AZ should be bid against the applicable SCA WD 15-5479, Rev. 15, 12/27/2021, Occupation Code and Title: 23019 Aircraft Logs and Records Technician. Is this understanding correct?

As per Section L, 4.3(c), the Offeror shall propose in compliance at a minimum, with the current hourly rate set forth in the Department of Labor Wage

Determination as applicable.

RFP Section L, B, 4.5.2 Labor

Hours and DLM Att 12 CBA

North Island

North Island Aircraft Mechanic

Helper (Aircraft Electroplate

Helper)

Given that the current CBA for North Island (Att 12) does not cover the Aircraft Mechanic Helper, it is understood that offerors shall bid the Aircraft Mechanic Helper against the applicable SCA WD 15-5635, Rev. 18, 12/27/2021, Occupation Code and Title: 23040 Aircraft Mechanic Helper. Is this understanding correct?

As per Section L, 4.3(c), the Offeror shall propose in compliance at a minimum, with the current hourly rate set forth in the Department of Labor Wage

Determination as applicable.

RFP Section L, B, 4.5.2 Labor

Hours and DLM Att 5 Level of

Effort

Lemoore Sheetmetal Mechanic

Occupation Code

RFP Section L, B, 4.5.2 lists the Sheetmetal Mechanic Position as Occupation Code 23022 for all sites. Attachment 5 Level of Effort matches that listing for all sites except for Lemoore. Attachment 5 lists the Lemoore

Sheetmetal Mechanic as Occupation Code 23080. That appears to be a typographical error. Is it correct the Sheetmetal Mechanic at all sites should be Occupation Code 23022?

DLM attachment 10 - CBA Lemoore shows job categories for Sheet Metal with applicable wages on Appendix "A". 23022 should be used as SCA code. 23080 is typographical error.

Please monitor SAM.gov for updates/changes to the RFP

RFP Section B; Attachment 5

LOE/Attachment L-4 CS-1.

Section B pg. 8, Attachment 5 all pages, Attachment L-4 "Cost

Summary Spreadsheet" and

"Summary" tabs

CLIN 0009 of Section B requests an Overtime Price to include Total Overtime Cost plus Fixed Fee. The "Cost Summary Spreadsheet" tab of Attachment L-4 requests a Straight Time Cost prior to burdens for each Labor

Category. The "Cost Summary Spreadsheet" tab separately lumps Straight Time and Overtime Labor Categories together for a total cost, with burdens being applied to that total, rather than having a separate calculation for

Straight Time versus Overtime.

Q: Does the Government intend for Offerors to adjust the spreadsheet to allow for separating of costs/fee between Straight Time and Overtime in order to separate the prices for inclusion in Section B?

Please monitor SAM.gov for updates/changes to the RFP

DLM+Attachemnt+5-

+Level+Of+Effort

Location - Kaneohe Bay; Labor

Category - Logs & Records Tech

Indirect; Employee Type - CBA

Attachment 5 directs offerors to propose the "Logs & Records Tech Indirect" at Kaneohe Bay as CBA. A CBA has not been provided to offerors for this location and position.

Q: Will the Government please provide offerors with the applicable CBA?

There is no CBA for Kaneohe Bay. As per Section L, 4.3(c), the Offeror shall propose in compliance at a minimum, with the current hourly rate set forth in the

Department of Labor Wage Determination as applicable.

DLM Attachment L-3, Vol 2

PP-1

Excel Row 23, Item 3.5.2(b)

Q: For labor category "type," will the Government please confirm that Contractors should list "direct" or "indirect?"

Q: If this is not the case, will the Government please specify what is meant by labor category type?

The contractor shall list all labor categories used in support of the proposed contract/TO/DO. The Government expects to see what types of labor categories were supported on the referenced contract, as well as the number of different labor categories that supported on the referenced contract.

DLM Attachment 5, RFP

Section B Section B pg. 4 - 5

With Amd. 0001 Section B now includes 6 Teams Leads and 2 Supervisors, while Attach. 5 LOE now includes 6 Team Leads and 9 Supervisors.

Q: Will the Government please clarify which number of Supervisors is correct?

The labor category table on section B page 4-5 on the RFP does not provide the quantites per labor categories. It simply lists the labor categories per site.

Attachment 5 LOE does provide the quantities by location. Use attachment 5

LOE for the correct number of supervisors and leads.

81 DLM Attachment 5 LOE Column - Employee Type

In amendment 0001 on DLM_Attachment_5_-Level_of_Effort a column titled ‘Employee Type’ has been added.

North Island:

Electrician, Maintenance - 23,160

(Aircraft Mechanic Helper) Aircraft Electroplater Helper - 23,040

Precision Measurement Equipment Calibrator (Instrument Mechanic) - 23,460

Welder - 23,960

Camp Pendleton:

Electrician, Maintenance - 23,160

Miramar:

Electrician, Maintenance - 23,160

Cannon:

Electrician, Maintenance - 23,160

Yuma:

Logs and Records

Questions: Requested a cross reference matrix be provided mapping the above labor categories as there is currently no direct mapping of these labor categories to their respective CBAs and these labor categories are now identified as CBA employees. In addition to the above labor categories no CBA has been provided for Kaneohe Bay and there are CBA identified employees in this location.

There is no CBA for Kaneohe Bay. Updated LOE will be provided.

Please monitor SAM.gov for updates/changes to the RFP

N68520-21-R-0007-0001;

DLM Attachment 6 Key

Personnel

Amendment 0001 added several personnel labeled "supervisor" for several sites. In DLM attachement 6, it shows 4 personnel identified/asterisked as Key Personnel. The definitiion of Supervisor in DLM Attach 6 is "Key

Personnel".

Question: Will the government confirm the number of Key Personnel required for purposes of submitting resumes and LOIs?

The Government confirms that as per the Section L Labor Hours (4.5.2) chart and Attachment 5 (LOE) there are 11 Key personnel for whom resumes are required: 1 Program Manager, 1 Quality assurance Program Monitor, 1

Supervisor at Lemoore, and 8 Supervisors at North Island.

RFP Attachment L-4 CS-1. &

DLM+Attachment+5+-

+Level+Of+Effort

Instructions Tab, #3 &

DLM+Attachment+5+_+Level+O f+Effort

The instructions read, “Labor categories with more than one person providing service shall be listed multiple times for each person performing work. For example, if the offeror proposes four Senior Analysts, then the labor category Senior Analyst shall be listed four times along with their applicable rates and information.”

Issue: DLM+Attachment+5+-+Level+Of+Effort lists labor categories with more than one person on each line.

Question 1: Will the Government please clarify if they intend for Offerors to list one FTE per line which is in contradiction to the Attachment 5 LOE provided? If having a separate line per FTE is the intention, 488 lines would be required compared to the 54 lines provided in Attachment 5 LOE. As a further example, “Sheetmetal Mechanic” in North Island would need to be listed on 136 separate lines, rather than on one line as per the

Attachment 5 LOE.

Question 2: Is the separation of FTEs intended to apply only to the key employees that must be named?

Please monitor SAM.gov for updates/changes to the RFP

RFP Section B - B.1.4 Table;

RFP Section L para. 3.2;

Section L.4.5.2 Table:

Attach. 5

Attach. 6

In Section B.1.4 Table, 2 Supervisors/Managers are included in the Labor Category column (1 at Lemoore and 1 at North Island) with asterisks (*) to denote Key Personnel.

Section L.3.2 indicates one resume for 1 Supervisor (Lemoore) as Key Personnel.

Section L.4.5.2 Table indicates 10,560 hours [approximately 5.5 FTEs] for Supervisor at Lemoore; Table also indicates 84,480 hours [approximately 44 FTEs] for Supervisor at North Island. with only a single * in the row to indicate key personnel.

Attach. 6 indicates one Supervisor as Key Personnel (Lemoore).

Attach. 5 includes 9 Supervisors-Contractors with no key personnel indicator.

Issue: The five RFP citations above are ambiguous and unclear as to how many and at which locations are the Supervisors considered key personnel. This ambiguity provides a distinct advantage to the incumbent contractor and greatly restricts competition from non-incumbent offerors.

Question 1: Will the Government please confirm that only 3 Key Resumes and Letters of Intent are required for submittal?

Question 2: If the Government cannot confirm that only 3 Key Resumes and Letters of intent are required, will the Government please rectify the ambiguities discussed above and provide the total number and locations for all Supervisors that are considered key personnel?

The Government confirms that as per the Section L Labor Hours (4.5.2) chart and Attachment 5 (LOE) there are 11 Key personnel for whom reusmes are required: 1 Program Manager, 1 Quality assurance Program Monitor, 1

Supervisor at Lemoore, and 8 Supervisors at North Island.

DLM+Attachment+5+-

+Level+Of+Effort. All CBAs.

Productive MHRS column.

Attachment 5 directs Offerors to propose productive hours of 1920. 1920 productive hours equate to 160 combined hours of vacation and holiday pay. All CBAs require higher vacation and holiday hours than 160. For example, Attachment 12 CBA NI Miramar Pendelton stipulates 12 holidays and a minimum of 143.52 vacation hours. These PTO stipulations equate to a total of 239.52 hours paid time off (12*8=96 + 143.52 = 239.52).

2080 minus 239.52 equates to a productive manyear of 1840.48.

Q: Will the Government please provide a productive manyear in Attachment 5 that is more in line with CBA requirements for Paid Time Off?

No, The Government will conduct the evaluation as per Section L. Para 4.5.2, a work-year is defined as 1,920 hours exclusive of holidays and leave.

86 RFP

Section L 2.0 Volume 2 - Past

Performance

In relevant portions of Question #31, as published in the Q&A dated 04 March 2022, industry inquired as follows: “Will the Government please confirm that each individual JV team member is not required to submit relevant contracts if the JV is pre-existing, and not specifically formed to propose on a particular solicitation?” and “Will the Government please confirm that past performance from only one JV team member is acceptable for establishing an overall performance confidence rating for the JV Offeror?”. The Government provided the following answers respectively:

The Government does not confirm that each individual JV team member is not required to submit relevant contracts if the JV is pre-existing, and not specifically formed to propose on a particular solicitation. The

Government requires that the JV, and each JV Team Member shall each provide up to five (5) relevant contracts, if available. Please monitor SAM.gov for updates/changes to the RFP.

The Government does not confirm that the past performance for one JV team member is acceptable for establishing an overall performance confidence rating for the JV offeror. Per Section M, the Past Performane

[sic] assessment will "address the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort based on the Offeror’s (including principal entities’) relevant past performance and systemic improvement."

Q: Can the Government please confirm and clarify with regards to the above questions and answers that it will assess a JV’s past performance in the aggregate by crediting the JV overall with past performance assessments attributable to a single JV member, when appropriate, consistent with 8(a) regulatory requirements at 13 CFR 124.513(f), which states (emphasis added):

When evaluating the capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems, and certifications of an entity submitting an offer for an 8(a) contract as a joint venture established pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. A procuring activity may not require the 8(a) Participant to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience , business systems, and certifications necessary to perform the contract .

Q: If the Government can confirm the above, will the Government revise Section “M” to clarify that a JV’s past performance will be evaluated in the aggregate, that each JV member’s past performance will not be evaluated separately, and that each JV member will not be required individually to meet overall evaluation criteria (whether or not such JV has been specifically formed for this procurement)?

The Government evaluation will comply with 13 CFR 124.513(f) and 13 C.F.R.

§ 125.8(e).

DLM_Attachment_5_Level of

Effort Ordering Period _ Labor Category

With the release of amendment 1 on 7 March 2022 the labor category "Logs and Records Tech" was changed to "Logs and Records Tech Indirect" at K-Bay, North Island, and Yuma

Q: Was it the governments intent for the offeror to price this labor category at those locations in our indirect cost buildup?

The Government has amended attachment 5 to remove the word "indirect" from the "Logs and Records Tech" labor category. All labor categories in Attachment

5 shall be priced in the direct cost buildup. Please monitor SAM.gov for updates/changes to the RFP.

L-4, Instructions Tab, Instructions for Subcontractors

Item 1 on row 25, Item 11 on row

Row references appear to be incorrect per the instructions.

Item 1 - Row 25 Is "Replace Prime Contractor with Subcontractor in A7, A8, A13, and A20"

Should be -"Replace Prime Contractor with Subcontractor in A7, A8, A18, and A25"

Item 11 - Row 35 Is - "Delete rows 22 - 48"

Should be - "Delete rows 27 - 53"

Question - Can the government confirm that the above corrections are appropriate? If not, will the Government provide the correct references?

Please monitor SAM.gov for updates/changes to the RFP.

L-4, Instructions Tab, Instructions for Subcontractors Row 35

The deletion of these rows removes the Fixed Fee rows. In which rows should the subcontractor include the fee dollars for proposed labor through G&A?

Please monitor SAM.gov for updates/changes to the RFP.