RFP F-22-045-IM_2_4-25-22.pdf

AMENDMENT NO. 2

DATED: April 25, 2022

Palm Beach County Purchasing Department

50 South Military Trail, Suite 110, West Palm Beach, FL 33415

RFP No. F-22-045/IM

Title: UNIFORMED SECURITY GUARD SERVICES, GENERAL

FACILITIES – FEDERALLY FUNDED

REVISED Request for Proposal Due Date: May 12, 2022

This Amendment is issued to provide additional information and clarification to the RFP document:

A. Proposers are advised of the following changes to the RFP:

1. Section 1.7 TIMETABLE is revised as follows:

Deadline for receipt 5/12/2022 4:00 p.m. Purchasing Department of Proposals 50 S. Military Trail, Ste. 110

W. P. B., FL 33415

Selection Committee 5/27/2022 10:00 a.m. Purchasing Department Meeting 50 S. Military Trail Room 1N-142 North/South

W.P.B., FL 33415

Oral Presentations/ 6/10/2022 10:00 a.m. Purchasing Department Selection Committee 50 S. Military Trail Meeting (if conducted) Room 1N-142 North/South

W.P.B., FL 33415

Posting Date of Notice 6/15/2022 Purchasing Department of Intent to Award 50 S. Military Trail, Ste. 110

W.P.B., FL 33415

www.pbcgov.com/purchasing

BCC Award Date 8/23/2022 Governmental Center 301 N. Olive Avenue, 6th Floor

W.P.B., FL 33401

Contract Start Date 8/23/2022 http://www.pbcgov.com/purchasing

AMENDMENT NO. 2 to

2. Section 3.1 EXPERIENCE/QUALIFICATION/BACKGROUND/REFERENCES INFORMATION, delete Subsection 3.1.4 in its entirety and replace with the following:

“3.1.4 Proposer shall provide a list of all Non-residential Clients and their contact information with whom the proposer has had a contract within the past five

(5) years. The County will seek references from a minimum of one (1) client or twenty percent (20%) of clients submitted, whichever is greater. If proposer has more than five (5) Non-residential Clients, proposer shall limit its list to five (5). Proposer shall complete and submit Appendix H “List of All Contracts for Prior 5 Years” herein to support this requirement.”

3. Section 4, SCOPE OF WORK/SERVICES, ATTACHMENT C, MINIMUM

REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL UNIFORMED SECURITY GUARDS AND

SUPERVISORS, is revised as follows:

a. Delete Section 3. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION in its entirety and replace it with the following:

“Each Uniformed Security Guard shall be given a physical examination by a qualified physician, medical center, or hospital, to determine suitability for hire prior to assignment. The CONTRACTOR shall pay for the cost of this physical examination. A physician’s sign off that these conditions are met must be made available prior to assignment and a physical re-evaluation is required with each Contract renewal. All personnel shall meet the following physical requirements:

A. Uniformed Security Guards shall be proportioned as to height and weight to allow necessary movements to perform job duties.

B. Uniformed Security Guards shall be physically capable of performing all essential job duties, with or without reasonable accommodation.

C. Urinalysis for detection of controlled substances.

D. Uniformed Security Guards shall be able to distinguish color differences and have ability to distinguish color used in visual displays or badges, specifically red, green, blue and yellow.

Uniformed Security Guards shall possess binocular vision correctable to 20/30 (Snellen).

E. Uniformed Security Guards shall be capable of hearing ordinary conversation at fifteen (15) feet with either ear, with or without the benefit of a hearing aid. Uniformed Security

Guards must be able to hear and respond to spoken voice, audible alarms, and telephone calls in an operational setting.

F. Uniformed Security Guards shall be able to lift repetitively up to forty (40) lbs. for long periods of time during an eight (8) hour shift, while standing.

G. Physical Condition: Uniformed Security Guards shall be able to stand unassisted for a minimum of two (2) hours consecutively and shall be able to sit, stand, lift, and/or bend throughout a shift. Positions shall not be filled with “light duty” personnel.

H. Uniformed Security Guards who perform physical searches of baggage must be able to open and close latches, zippers, and screw caps, remove or feel beneath the baggage contents, and reach all sides and compartments of the bag.

I. Uniformed Security Guards shall have the ability to remain alert throughout the duration of a shift.

J. Uniformed Security Guards assigned to COUNTY Facilities shall have no communicable diseases.”

b. Section 4. REQUIRED BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION, Subsection A., item 6. is revised as follows:

“6. Credit check, to the extent permitted by applicable law; and”

4. The sign-in sheet from the Pre-Proposal Conference held on March 25, 2022, is provided in this Amendment as Attachment No.1.

B. Questions received from Action Group Management and the Facilities

Development & Operations Department’s responses:

Q.1. What is the current bill rate for Uniform Security Guard Services?

A.1. The following are the current hourly rates for Uniform Security Guard

Services:

a. Guard 1 (Unarmed) $17.23

b. Guard II (Unarmed) $18.72

c. Guard V (Armed) $20.15

d. Guard VI (Lead Worker) $19.87

e. Guard III (PBIA) $18.87

f. Guard IV (Armed) $19.70

g. Site Supervisor (General Location) $20.83

h. Site Supervisor (Judicial location) $22.74

Q.2. What is the total amount for the current contract?

A.2. The total amount for the current term of the contract is $8,444,702.00. The current contract includes all locations. This RFP only includes federally funded locations.

C. Questions received from Allied Universal Security Services and the Facilities

Q.1. What are the requested leadership/managerial positions, which must be assigned to the Palm Beach County account and designated locations?

A.1. See Section 3.3 KEY PERSONNEL AND OPERATIONS INFORMATION of the

RFP. Proposer is to provide the list of executive management and supervisory staff it needs to fulfil their obligations under the contract.

Q.2. 4.9 Minimum Qualification Requirements For All Uniformed Security Guards And

Supervisors - Does Palm Beach County have an expanded specific list of qualifications for each officer, assigned to the Palm Beach County account and specific locations?

A.2. See Section 4.9 of the RFP and Attachments B and C to the Scope of Work/Services.

Q.3. 4.7 Uniforms Subsection C - Are there any special badging, or credentialing requirements?

A.3. See Sections 2.12 CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS CHECK; 4.6 GENERAL REQUIREMNTS; and 4.7 UNIFORMS of the RFP and Attachment C, MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL UNIFORMED SECURITY GUARDS, to the Scope of Work/Services; also Article 10 - CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS CHECK of Attachment 1, SAMPLE STANDARD CONTRACT, to the RFP.

Q.4. Attachment A to Scope of Work/Services Definitions Sub Section: County

Equipment - Is Palm Beach County able to disclose a specific and more detailed list of any equipment that is needed for this opportunity?

A.4. The definition of “County Equipment” in Attachment A to the Scope of

Work/Services defines the equipment typically provided by the County, there is no other list available.

Q.5. Article 7 Performance and Payment Bond - We understand that Palm Beach

County is requiring a performance bond, however, will a bid bond be required at the time of RFP submission, or at any time, prior to notification of the successful bidder?

A.5. No, a Bid Bond will not be required.

Q.6. Appendix H - In reference to Appendix H, “List of all contracts for prior 5 years Non

– Residential Client List RFP No. F-22-045/IM”, would Palm Beach County be open to reducing this requirement to a much smaller and abbreviated list?

Justification:

i. As a larger company, our operations in Palm Beach has 100s of contract clients over the last 5 years, with would produce a massive list of contracts.

ii. A list of that magnitude would expose sensitive information about our companies client relations within the past 5 years, which could prove beneficial to potential competitors.

A.6. If the proposer has more than five (5) non-residential clients, proposer shall limit its list to five (5). See Section A, item 2. above.

Q.7. Section 2.25 on page 12 of the RFP requires the successful proposer to furnish a

Performance and Payment Bond. Are all bidders required to submit a Consent of Surety with the proposal?

A.7. No, there is no requirement to submit a Consent of Surety with the proposal.

Q.8. We note the requirement for security guards to undergo a physical exam prior to assignment. See Section 3 on page 41 of the RFP. Please confirm that the foregoing requirement will not apply to any of the employees of the incumbent contractor who are currently serving at County locations should the incumbent contractor retain its contract with the County, even if incumbent personnel were not required to undergo a physical exam prior to their initial assignment. We understand that the Americans with Disabilities Act imposes significant restrictions on an employer’s ability to perform a physical exam on an incumbent employee.

Per EEOC Enforcement Guidance 915.002 (07/27/00), a physical exam may be conducted on an incumbent employee only when the employer has reason to believe, based on objective evidence, that the officer’s ability to perform essential job functions may be impaired due to a medical condition and/or the officer may pose a direct threat due to a medical condition.

A.8. To Confirm - the incumbent employees will not be required to undergo a physical exam prior to their initial assignment.

Q.9. We assume that the Contractor’s compliance with the fitness standards in Section

3 on page 41 of the RFP is intended to be in accordance with applicable law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act. Can the provisions cited below be revised as follows to achieve compliance with applicable law?

Replace Section 3.B with the following:

o “Uniformed Security Guards shall be physically capable of performing all essential job duties, with or without reasonable accommodation.”

Delete Section 3.C in its entirety

In Section 3.F, insert the phrase “with or” before the word “without” on line 2.

In Section 3.H, delete the phrase “shall be in good physical condition and.”

A.9. Regarding Sections 3.B, 3.C, 3.F. and 3.H; the recommended changes are acceptable. See Section A, item 3. a. above.

Q.10 We note that Section 4.A.3 and Section 4.A.5 on page 42 of the RFP require psychological screening and personality assessment testing respectively.

Are incumbent personnel who have already undergone any such screening or testing required to be re-screened/re-tested?

What tests will satisfy the psychological screening requirement?

What tests will satisfy the personality assessment test requirement?

A.10. No, incumbent personnel will not be required to undergo any such re-screening or re-testing. Regarding what testing will satisfy the psychological and personality assessment tests, this should be determined by the proposer and included as part of the proposer’s Transition Plan. See Section 3.2.1. of the RFP regarding employee recruitment and evaluation.

Q.11. Section 4. Attachment C, Section 4 A., item 6 on page 42 of the RFP requires the

Contractor to perform credit checks on security guards. Numerous jurisdictions restrict or prohibit an employer’s ability to perform a credit check. Can aforementioned specification be rephrased to state “credit check, to the extent permitted by applicable law?”

A.11. Yes, the recommended change is acceptable. See Section A, item 3.b. above.

Q.12. We note that Article 6 of the Sample Standard Contract on page 60 of the RFP requires the Contractor to make a “most favored customer representation.” A generic market price does not apply to our services. Our company works carefully to provide each of our thousands of clients with pricing that is tailored to their special operations based on numerous considerations. As such and given that pricing is based on a client’s circumstances and needs, can Article 6 be revised to address the similarity criteria to be tracked so as to facilitate more effective management of our obligations under the most favored nations clause?

Delete the remainder of the first paragraph after the word “than” on line 4 and replace it with the following:

o “…the lowest price charged to any of CONTRACTOR’s Similarly Situated

Customers, as defined below.”

Replace the third paragraph with the following:

o “Furthermore, the CONTRACTOR warrants that the price(s) shall not exceed the CONTRACTOR’s lowest price(s) extended to any Similarly Situated Customer. As used herein a “Similarly Situated Customer” is a current customer of CONTRACTOR in the government sector, in the same regional market, requiring the same or substantially similar officer qualifications, service and training, in like or smaller quantities, over a substantially comparable time period. Should CONTRACTOR provide pricing to any Similarly Situated Customer that is lower than the prices charged to the COUNTY, the CONTRACTOR shall notify the COUNTY promptly, and the parties shall amend this Contract to contain the more favorable prices.”

A.12. Proposers should propose any exceptions to the Sample Standard Contract (Attachment 1) in their proposal. The County, however, is not inclined to accept any such exceptions since these are the County’s standard contract terms and conditions.

Q.13. Can Article 8.B of the Sample Standard Contract on page 62 of the RFP be revised to give the Contractor the reciprocal right to terminate the Contract for convenience on 120 days’ prior written notice to the County?

A.13. See Section C, A.12. above.

Q.14. We note the requirement in Article 15.A of the Sample Standard Contract on page

65 of the RFP for any self-insured retention in excess of $10,000 to be approved by the County. Our company maintains an SIR that has been determined as optimal for a company of our size and financial strength after careful review with our insurance advisors, and it cannot be eliminated or reduced with respect to a specific client. We have demonstrated to our insurers the financial ability to fund the SIR over an extended period of time. Should the County require added security, we can provide the guaranty of our parent company of losses and expenses that fall within the SIR. Accordingly, can the third paragraph of Article 15.A be revised to insert the following after the word “Department” on line 5 to reflect those parameters?

“Approval of the Contractor’s self-insured retention shall not be unreasonably withheld upon Contractor’s demonstration of financial capacity to carry said self-insured retention. Should the County require added security, the County shall accept a financial guarantee of Contractor’s parent company guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses that fall within the policy self-insured retention.”

A.14. See Section C, A.12. above.

Q.15. Our company routinely adds clients as additional insureds on our insurance policies, so long as our obligations are aligned with our indemnification obligations.

The blanket additional insured endorsements to all of our policies automatically cover any party we are required by written contract to cover as an additional insured, to the extent set forth in such contract, without the necessity of expressly naming such party. Can Article 15.B of the Sample Standard Contract on pages

65-66 of the RFP be revised as follows to reflect those parameters?

Delete the remainder of the first sentence after the word “applicable” on line 2 and replace it with the following:

o “…Palm Beach County and the Sheriff shall be included as additional insureds, to the extent of the Contractor’s indemnification obligations in

Article 17, under the coverage required by the Contract.”

Revise the second sentence as follows:

o On line 2, replace the phrase “additional insured” with the phrase

“certificate of insurance.”

o Delete the phrase “must also be listed as additional insured” and replace it with the phrase “are included as additional insureds where required by written contract.”

A.15. See Section C, A.12. above.

Q.16. Our company stands behind our security services and regularly accepts the obligation to indemnify clients for the comparative portion of any losses, costs or damages that are caused by the acts or omissions of our personnel in the performance of security services under client agreements. However, we cannot assume liability for the negligence, gross negligence and/or willful misconduct of clients or any other third parties. Can Article 17 of the Sample Standard Contract on page 67 of the RFP be revised to insert the following as the last paragraph to reflect that standard?

“Anything to the contrary notwithstanding, Contractor’s obligations hereunder shall not extend to any claims, liability, loss, expense, cost, damages or causes of action, including attorney’s fees and costs, to the extent caused by the negligence, gross negligence or willful misconduct of the County or any third party other than Contractor and Contractor’s subcontractors, agents, servants and employees.”

A.16. See Section C, A.12. above.

Q.17. We note the requirement in Article 21 on pages 69-70 of the Sample Standard

Contract to give the County “first priority” for all goods and services upon the occurrence of an event described therein. Our company needs to preserve our ability equitably allocate services amongst our government clients within Palm

Beach County in the event of any such occurrence. Can Article 21 be revised as follows to reflect those parameters?

All references to “first priority” shall change to “priority along with other government clients in Palm Beach County” and all references to “first priority basis” shall be changed to “priority basis along with other government clients in Palm Beach County.”

Inset the following as the last sentence:

o “Should it become necessary for Contractor to allocate services over all of its government clients in Palm Beach County, said allocation will made equitably and in consultation with all of the Contractor’s government clients in Palm Beach County.”

A.17. See Section C, A.12. above.

Q.18. Can the following mutually beneficial, reciprocal limitation of liability provision be added to the Sample Standard Contract as new Article 47?

“ARTICLE 47- LIMITATION OF LIABILITY”

Except for the Contractor’s obligations under Article 17, neither party shall be liable to the other party for consequential, incidental, indirect or punitive damages, or for list profits.”

A.18. No, Article 47 will not be added.

Q.19. Can the Contractor’s pricing as quoted in Appendix A be increased when and as needed to allow the Contractor to recoup increases in the following costs that are outside of the Contractor’s control: Federal, state or local taxes, levies, or required withholdings; costs under collective bargaining agreements; minimum, prevailing and living wage rates and other statutory requirements, such as legally mandated sick leave costs; and medical and other benefit costs?

A.19. No, price increases will not be accepted.

D. Questions received from Forefront Protection and Security Services, LLC, and the Facilities Development & Operations Department’s responses:

Q.1. Can you tell me how much the Performance and Payment Bond needs to be?

A.1. See Section 2.25 - Performance and Payment Bond of the RFP. The

Performance and Payment Bond needs to be a dollar amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the Total Offer as specified on Appendix A, Price Proposal Page(s). The requirements will not be modified.

Q.2. Also, what is the turnaround time that a deficiency can be remedied before an official payment can be deducted from the Performance Bond?

A.2. A deficiency is governed by the timely payment of subcontractors by the terms of the contract between successful proposer and its subcontractors.

In general, a subcontractor can make a claim on the payment bond if it hasn’t been paid or paid timely. The successful proposer’s performance obligations to the County will be governed by the Contract, see Attachment 1 of the RFP.

Q.3. Considering the size and workload associated with this contract, one can understand why such a Performance Bond would serve as an ideal level of surety.

However, our company falls into the social-economic categories of a Service Disabled Veteran Owned, Small and Minority Business Enterprise. The RFP solicitation seeks to find a company that meets the criteria of being at least small or minority-owned. That said, while our social-economic set-asides qualify us to submit a proposal to the solicitation, there is a potential for us to be vicariously eliminated as a viable candidate from the opportunity considering that the projected Performance Bond supersedes the size of our small business.

A.3. See Section 2.25 - Performance and Payment Bond of the RFP for the requirements regarding furnishing a Performance and Payment Bond; these requirements will not be modified.

E. Questions received from i-MAGE Corp., and the Facilities Development & Operations Department’s responses:

Q.1. RFP Section 3.1.8 states “Proposer must provide written evidence (copies of current licenses/certifications) that show that the firm (proposer), or a principal in the firm, is licensed to contract the scope of work in Palm Beach County with the following: 1. Class “B” Security Agency, or Class “BB” Security Agency Branch Office License, issued by the State of Florida, Division of Licensing. 2. Licensing issued by the City and/or County where the local office is located and/or where security services will be provided. Proposer shall submit with its proposal, a copy of all license(s) to support this qualification.”

a. Question: Our license application was submitted earlier this month, but may not be processed in time for this proposal submission. We’ve found staffing shortages due to COVID have delayed these types of applications in many states. Can this requirement be amended to read “proposer shall submit with its proposal, proof of application submittal and/or pending status to support this qualification”?

A.1. No, the requirement will not be amended. Proposer shall submit with its proposal, a copy of all license(s) to support this qualification.

Q.2. What portion of our submission (to include technical and price) is subject to

Florida’s Sunshine Law and what can proposers do to protect proprietary information?

A.2. Section 2.7 of the RFP advised proposers that “Any material submitted in response to this Request for Proposal is considered a public document in accordance with Section 119.07, F.S. This includes material which the responding proposer might consider to be confidential. All submitted information that the responding proposer believes to be confidential and exempt from disclosure (i.e., a trade secret or as provided for in Section

119.07 and Section 812.081, F.S.) must be specifically identified as such.”

Please know that by marking your entire proposal “Confidential” and “Proprietary”, the proposer fails to meet this requirement.

Proposals received pursuant to a request for proposals are exempt from disclosure only until the County provides notice of a decision or within thirty

(30) days after proposal opening, whichever is earlier. Absent any other specific statutory exemption, the County is bound by the Public Records Laws of Florida to disclose this information.

F. Questions received from Servexo Protective Services, and the Facilities

Q.1. Who is the current incumbent, if there is one?

A.1. The current incumbent is Universal Protection Services, LP dba Allied

Universal Security Services.

Q.2. What is the current contract value?

A.2. See Section B, A.2. above.

Q.3. What are the current hourly rates of the incumbent?

A.3. See Section B, A.1. above.

Q.4. Can the Caltrans provide a copy of the current agreement with the incumbent?

A.4. A copy of the current agreement can be received through a Public Records

Request to Angela Sims at ASims1@pbcgov.org. (We assume proposer means “County” not “Caltrans”)

Q.5. How long has the incumbent been providing services, or the start if the current agreement?

A.5. The start date of the current contract was July 12, 2017.

Q.6. What was the total spent on the contract last year?

A.6. The current contract is for all locations, this solicitation is for Federally

Funded locations only. See Section B, A.2. above.

Q.7. Will new provider be able to recruit current incumbent staff after award?

A.7. Yes, see Section 3.2.1 of the RFP, recruitment of existing employees should be addressed in the proposer’s Transition Plan.

Q.8. Does the current incumbent have the contract fully staffed?

A.8. No. The incumbent does not have the contract fully staffed.

Q.9. What length of time will be provided for transition?

A.9. As stated in Section 4.6 E. 2. of the RFP- 30 days.

Q.10. There is current State Pricing Agreement in place with the State of Florida, is the

County authorized to use pricing of the agreement?

A.10. No, State pricing will not be authorized.

Q.11. Given that the contract will be federally funded, is there any goal that is meant to be met?

A.11. No goal, but see Section 2.23 of the RFP for the affirmative steps a proposer must take if subcontracts are to be let.

mailto:ASims1@pbcgov.org

All changes addressed in this Amendment No. 2 shall be incorporated into RFP No. F- 22-045/IM and the final contract. All other terms and conditions of the RFP remain the same and unchanged.

NOTE: Please acknowledge receipt of this Amendment No. 2 by signing below and returning this page with your Proposal Response. Each Amendment to the RFP shall be signed by an authorized agent and submitted with the proposal or the proposal shall be deemed non-responsive.

Donna Pagel/Pi^chasincg Manager

ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

COMPANY NAME SIGNATURE

DATE

Attachment No. 1 to Amendment No. 2 to

RFP No. F-22-045/IM

REGISTRATION

NON-MANDATORY PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

RFP No. F-22-045/IM

TITLE: UNIFORMED SECURITY GUARD SERVICES,

GENERAL FACILITIES- FEDERALLY FUNDED

DO NOT REMOVE THIS REGISTER

IF AVAILABLE PLEASE LEAVE A BUSINESS CARD

IF YOU ARE REPRESENTING A COMPANY OR COMPANIES

PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME OR NAMES OF THE

COMPANY/COMPANIES ON THE REGISTER

PLEASE PRINT**************** **************

1.) Company: fir'sContact Person: Pgfe-pr>y U .ro

Address: S>~7r Phone#:^̂ -~L( (please,no P.O.box numbers)

\A10tUhl . FL ? 7 CeM :(9S# ' ^3 -̂3 e-mail: j VO

2.) Company: CVlOĉD COfjSU CJ// j(r Contact Person: £s) ClJJj/(£0

Phone#:(%&~ ) 7f7 - fiOS

Cell#:( ).

w SUL) v# sim~ Address:

(piemrtmn/uFu^m CW£&-C/W>ut7)M- L<.Cc6ffe-mail:.

3.) Company: iU& (v\ @-expy Contact Person: L\.&-3 I^FIN frO^ C \ O

Address: / S’stfb t/ > W./mh£r * ^P^oone#:( ) l«;ragygi^ -,<r7,'?- ^V'4-4-(Please,no P.O.box numbers)

&> trtr ->( °/ Cel

. Pc e-mail: L t SES<P 3. <> < uS<g?

Attachment No. 1 to Amendment No. 2 to

RFP No. F-22-045/IM

DO NOT REMOVE THIS REGISTER********************

fclWr?

Phone#:( 5£h ‘i % Cell#:(QM #3^ ail: /cs^/(^0Qun(\fr)teSSitf!>\ S) L . rte.'H

JCD

( Please, no P.O.box numbers) '

^u^Mi riHu, Contact Person:4 ) Company:

Address:

e-m fe>\? I 'lJlPK ^fty/'/'^y^n^fperson: LuU/ j^LA t_ ( QaV (please, no P.O. box numbers) . I f i 1>l

^t ŝY2O

5.) Company:

ft-y- 2AL U olPhone#:( ).Address:

Cell#:( ).

^ 0\ SSCl/W ^ 'J j trQl/ p* CQ ^U e-mail:

ry\sr /?£jM^ ' QrreCompany: Contact Person:

\)fPhone#:H7Xs &LO ~ S"1? M 6.)

* JuAddress:.

(please,no P.O. box numbers)

Cell#:( ).

e-mail:

XV/AA Jtwp 6u4uv

( ujpaCompany: Contact Person:7.)

Phone#:( ).Address:.

(please, no P.O. box numbers)

Cell#:( ).

I e/Jj (3̂ i \rr\ (A (^t C'^rp.COrf\e-mail:

(VlL'&l iWC fcin (*Wv UW? &4hone#: ( K \) <^-<^3

CeUtfli ‘Mt- lZ-rO A/ -3^-mail: /-'UA^K Milrrn^^

(-LrWkontact Person:Company: *8 )

Address:.

(PIlease, no P.O. bo* numbers)

6CY>