ATFS-4 Consolidated QA - 4 JAN 21.pdf

ATFS-4 QQ&A from Draft RFP

# Document Section Question Answer 1 Solicitation Section J. There is a discrepancy in the Attachments listed in the table and the list immediately following. Please clarify the list of

RFP attachments.

The Draft RFP did not include Attachment 02 DD254, Attachment 06 Area Wage Rate Determination, or Attachment 07 Cross-Reference Matrix. Those document were not completed at the time of posting but will be included in the near future.

2 Solicitation Section L.2.3. Section L.2.3 states “Do NOT submit main documents in the PDF “image”. Please clarify what the Government is referring to as “main documents” and “PDF image”.

The Governments requires the ability to search documents for proposal evaluations. The main documents are referring to the submitted Volumes and attachments. Enclosures such as teaming agreements, or Letters of commitment do not need to be searchable and can be an image or other PDF.

3 Solicitation Section L.2.7 This paragraph mentions a “detailed 30-day Milestone Chart for Phase-in”; however, there is no requirement to provide a Phase-In Plan with the proposal. For a contract this size, not requiring a Detailed Phase-In Plan in the solicitation poses high risk to the Government during the follow-on transition. Recommend the Government add the requirement to include a Detailed Phase-In Plan, including a Milestone Chart, with Volume I, as well as Section M language detailing how the plan will be evaluated.

The Government has reviewed the potential risk level of transitions and has determined that it is not a discriminating factor for evaluation.

4 Solicitation Section L.2.7 This paragraph mentions a “detailed 30-day Milestone Chart for Phase-in, and the Staffing Plan , attached to their respective volume ”; however, there is no requirement to provide a Staffing Plan with the proposal. Is a Staffing “Plan” is required.

The Government has removed the verbiage from L.2.7. A Staffing Plan is not required

5 Solicitation Section L.2.7 What are requirements for the Plan? The Government has removed the verbiage from L.2.7. A Staffing Plan is not required 6 Solicitation Section L.2.7 How will the Staffing Plan be evaluated? The Government has removed the verbiage from L.2.7. A Staffing Plan is not required 7 Solicitation Section L.2.7 What volume will the Staffing Plan be included in? The Government has removed the verbiage from L.2.7. A Staffing Plan is not required 8 Solicitation Section L.3.1 Section L.3.1 states “RFP Attachment – Technical Experience Reference workbook – shall use the text format, size and style, provided with the attachment, as is”. There is no RFP Attachment – Technical Experience Reference workbook that was released with the draft, included in any of the volume detail for submission or included in Section J

– List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments. Question/Comment: Please clarify, and provide if applicable, what RFP Attachment – Technical Experience Reference workbook is and where to include it in our submission.

This was an administrative error, that is not a requirement for this effort. The Solicitation will be adjusted.

9 Solicitation Sections L.3.4 Section L.3.4 states “The Offerors shall ensure that each proposal volume submitted contains only the information relevant to that specific volume. The Offerors are cautioned that each volume of the proposal is evaluated standalone against the criteria set forth in Section M and the evaluators for one volume may be different than the evaluators of another volume”. However, Section L.4.1.1 states “Organizational charts may reference a specific location in the Volume III”. If offerors are to ensure that each proposal volume submitted contains only the information relevant to that specific volume, please clarify whether or not we should reference any Volume I Organizational Chart information in Volume III.

This was an administrative error; L.4.1.1 should read "Volume 1 - Factor 1 Technical."

10 Solicitation Sections L.4.1, M.4.1 Key Personnel are one of the most critical discriminators among offerors on services contracts. The contractors’ on-site key personnel team are the direct interfaces with the customer(s) on a day-to-day basis and responsible for implementing and managing an offeror’s proposal approaches. The Base/Program Manager is especially critical in ensuring requirements are met and in developing and maintaining customer and workforce relationships, including union representatives. Proposed key personnel must have the understanding and experience to manage ATFS requirements. Will the Government consider including requirements for offerors’ key personnel resumes in Sections L and M. If so, we recommend these be excluded from page count.

The Government does not dictate a technical solution to potential Offerors. L.4.1.3 identifies that each Offeror can submit letters of commitments which will be used to evaluate the Technical Solution. Solicitation. L.4.1.3 was edited to allow resumes for evaluation and L.2.7 was edited so resumes will not be included in the page count.

11 Solicitation Sections L.4.1, M.4.1.3 Section L.4.1 states “offeror shall provide its technical approach to satisfy the requirements listed in PWS sections 3.2 through 3.11. The Technical Approach shall include the following:” and then breaks the volume up by Organizational Chart, Personnel, Identification of Team, Labor Categories, Fluctuating Workload and Recruitment and Retention. The ratings in Table 1 in M.4.1.3 is based on “approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths…” Volume I Technical is currently based more on Management of the contract rather than a Technical PWS approach and understanding. It is our assumption that the Government is requiring offerors to address their understanding and specific approaches to PWS areas 3.2-3.11, as well as the specific areas listed (e.g., organizational charts, staffing, etc.)? Could the Government please clarify that this assumption is correct?

The Government is evaluating the feasibility of the Offerors technical proposal to obtain, maintain, sustain a qualified workforce as identified in PWS . Section M.4.1 describes the evaluation criteria regarding your question.

12 Solicitation Section L.4.1.2 L.4.1.2 requires offerors to identify personnel in this section, but it is unclear if this is personnel by name or proposed labor categories (LCATs). Will the Government please clarify if offerors should include personnel by name or LCATs in this section? If names are required, please clarify if Letters of Commitment (LOC) are also required for each person identified.

The Government does not require a by-name list but does require quantity and labor category.

13 Solicitation Section L.4.1.3 L.4.1.3 states Letters of Commitment are required for team members. It is unclear if these are related to subcontractors or individual personnel (e.g., key personnel). Typically for major subcontractors, offerors would have signed teaming agreements and not Letters of Commitment. Letters of Commitment are typically used for Key Personnel.

Question/Comment: Will the Government please clarify the reference to Letters of Commitment in this section?

An Offeror can identify their own Key personnel and provide a Letter of Commitment, but a Letter of Commitment is not required.

14 Solicitation Section L.5.1 RFP paragraph L.5.1 lists “aerial target operational testing” as one of the “services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort required by the RFP”; however, the RFP does not include a requirement to ensure the contract is awarded to a bidder with no potential OCI resulting from impaired objectivity, as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 9.5. Recommend that the Government add a requirement within the RFP that evaluates bidders’ risk with regard to actual, potential or perceived OCI in the execution of the contract.

Solicitation was edited to include an OCI requirement in Section L.

15 Solicitation Sections L.5.1, L.5.1.3, L.5.1.4, L.5.1.5.

Paragraph L.5.1 states: “Each contract citation shall be organized into the following sections:…” The citations are then to be broken down into five sections; L.5.1.1 Section 1 through L.5.1.5 Past Performance Questionnaire. Only Sections 1 - Contract Descriptions and 2 - Performance appear to be contract specific. Sections 3 – Subcontracts, 4 – New Corporate Entities, and L.5.1.5 Past Performance Questionnaire appear to apply to the Past Performance volume as a whole. Will the Government verify that contract citations should only include Sections 1 and 2 and that Sections 3, 4 and L.5.1.5 Past Performance Questionnaire Data applies to the Past Performance volume as a whole?

The Solicitation was edited to provide clear instructions for Past performance.

16 Solicitation Section L.5.1.3, L.5.1.6, L.7.7 Recommend the Government provide a consistent definition of major subcontractor throughout the RFP. The Solicitation was updated.

17 Solicitation Section L.8.4 L.8.4 states that Volume V shall include teaming agreements and letters of commitment. It also states Letters of Commitment are to be included in Volume V only. Will the Government clarify if teaming agreements should be included in both Volumes I and V? Also will the Government distinguish between these Letters of Commitment and those referenced as part of Volume IV?

The solicitation was edited to remove "Letters of Commitment are to be submitted in Volume V only". Provide them as identified in Section L as they do not go towards the page count. They could potentially be submitted in multiple volumes.

18 Solicitation Section M.5.1.d. The paragraph states that the evaluation will include all aspects of cost, schedule, and performance, including the Offeror's record of: “d. Business-like concern for the interest of its customers”. Quality, schedule, administrative aspects, financial performance, and personnel management are also listed as evaluated aspects. It is unclear what additional aspect the Government will be evaluating specifically regarding a business-like concern for the interest of the customers. Recommend the Government provide specific examples to clearly define what will be evaluated with regard to a bidder’s business-like concern for the interest of the customers.

Removed from Solicitation

19 Solicitation Section M.5.1.g The paragraph states “Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Section J, Attachment 4”. Please clarify that there is only a questionnaire in Attachment 4 and no additional forms to be included in past performance.

Solicitation edited, removed "forms" from Section M.5.1g

20 Solicitation Section M.5.1.k This section in part states that “relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort required by the RFP; efforts involving aerial target operators’ support, aerial target operational testing, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) logistics, and aerial target or UAV maintenance”. How do these four service areas impact the Relevancy rating on a submitted contract? For example, if an individual contract has all four areas covered, does that make it eligible for a “Very Relevant” rating assuming magnitude and complexities are similar? What about if a contract to only has two of the four areas; does that make it Somewhat Relevant? Please clarify.

Past performance relevancy is not a quantitative computation. The Offerors proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in section M.5.1

21 Solicitation Section M.7.2.c We recommend that the Government include a statement in Section M that a Price Realism analysis will be conducted to minimize any risks of bidders not fully understanding the PWS requirements, omission of required cost elements, realistic pricing for labor and ODCs and accounting for other cost factors such as NMGRT.

The Government has determined that Price Realism is not required and will not be included in the evaluation.

22 Attachment 1 PWS 2.5.2. Recommend the Government re-write the sentence to “The Contractor shall manage the timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification and resolution”.

The Government has reviewed the comment has decided not to include the recommended change

23 Attachment 1 PWS 2.6.2. PWS 2.6.2 Specialties outlines the qualifications for 12 specific positions due to their criticality to the ATFS mission.

Will the Government also incorporate these 12 positions into Section L as required key personnel and request resumes from offerors? The personnel proposed for these positions will have a significant impact on the day-to-day success of your next contractor.

The Government has reviewed the comment has decided not to include the recommended change.

24 Attachment 1 PWS 2.6.2 The paragraph entitled Specialties states: “The Government Contracting Officer reserves the right to reject proposed employees whose experience doesn’t support the mission”; however, the RFP does not require bidders to propose any Key Personnel. The paragraph states “Qualifications are a key factor to the performance of this effort”. We highly recommend that you include Key Personnel resume requirements for the listed specialty positions in the Technical Volume to reduce contract execution risk as you transition to a new contract. This should include, at a minimum, the Manager, Supervisor and Lead positions and any position whose functions are critical and/or the combination of specialized training/experience makes it harder to fill.

The Government has reviewed the comment has decided not to include the recommended change.

25 Attachment 1 PWS 2.6.2.12 The following note is provided in the PWS “NOTE: The Contractor shall identify the total number of personnel proposed for each category and the total number of personnel proposed to perform the requirements of the PWS.

Other labor categories not identified above, but included in the proposed staffing shall also be specified in the proposal along with the number of employees for each of those categories.” This note is not currently included as a requirement in Section L. Request that it be added to Section L to substantiate the realism of the offerors staffing approach.

The Government has reviewed the comment has decided not to include the recommended change.

26 Attachment 1 PWS 2.10.8. The 5th bullet in this paragraph “1.5 Cyber Technical and Meeting Support ” appears to have supposed to be the start of the next paragraph. Recommend clarifying the disconnect.

This was an administrative error in the PWS. The PWS was corrected.

27 Attachment 04 Attachment 04 states “Please return the completed Questionnaire to the Contracting Officer identified in the cover letter within the stated timeframe”. There is no cover letter included as part of Attachment 04. Recommend that the Government provide a PPQ Cover Letter as part of Attachment 04.

The Solicitation Attachment will be edited to include a cover letter.

28 Attachment 1 PWS 2.6.2 The non-exempt labor categories listed in PWS 2.6.2.3 – 2.6.2.8 do not cross reference to categories listed in Appendix A of the CBA. Will the Government please provide the correlation of the labor categories listed in PWS

2.6.2.3 -2.6.2.8 to the CBA labor categories

The Government will provide a list to identify the labor from the CBA and how it translates to the PWS.

29 Exhibit A A005 This CDRL item for the Phase Out Transition Plan includes a date of first submission of 45 days after contract award.

This seems like an aggressive schedule for plan that will not likely be executed for five-years. The first 45 days are critical, given all of the phase-in tasks and operations CDRL development that must occur; developing a Phase-out Transition Plan during that time would distract the contract and transition teams from more critical tasks.

Recommend making CDRL A005 due later in the Base Year.

Government will update CRDL A005.

30 Exhibit A A007 Exhibit A lists the frequency for submittal of the System Safety Program Progress Report (SSPPR) “as Rqd ”. PWS paragraph 2.8.3 states that the SSPPR is due at the end of each contract year. Recommend clarifying the discrepancy between the two documents.

Government will update CDRL A007 to reflect the PWS and require an annual frequency in block 10.

31 Exhibit A A008 Block 10, Frequency, lists “As Rqd ” and Block 16, Remarks, states: “Subsequent submissions are due NLT 15 days after end of month ”. Recommend clarifying the discrepancy between the two blocks.

Government will update CDRL A008 to reflect a monthly frequency in block 10.

32 Exhibit A A019 Block 10, Frequency, lists “As Rqd ” and Block 16, Remarks, states: “Initial report is due 45 days after contract award and monthly thereafter” . Recommend clarifying the discrepancy between the two blocks.

Government will update CDRL A019 to reflect a monthly frequency in block 10.

33 Exhibit A A021 Exhibit A lists the frequency of the Hazardous Materials Management Program Report “As Req”. PWS paragraph 3.9.1 states: “The contractor shall prepare annual HMMP Progress Reports IAW DI-MISC-81397”. Recommend clarifying the discrepancy between the two documents.

Government will update CDRL A021 to reflect a annual frequency in block 10.

34 Solicitation Section B CLIN Series X001 - Because of the large variability in time required to maintain, build-up, launch, and recover targets, depending on type, will the Government provide a projection of the anticipated 100 launches by target type by year for the next contract? This data is needed to provide the most accurate FFP estimate.

The Government will provide a list of the potential 100 launches by type for each year.

35 Solicitation Section B CLIN Series X003 - Because of the large variability in time required to maintain, build-up, launch, and recover targets, depending on type, will the Government provide a projection of the potential 10 launches by target type by year for the next contract? This data is needed to provide the most accurate CPFF estimate.

The Government will provide a list of the potential 10 launches by type for each year.

36 Solicitation Section B CLIN Series X003- The CLIN is structured as a “1 Lot”. Is this correct, or should the launches be priced individually with a Quantity of 10?

The solicitation was changed to reflect a unit of measure of "Each".

37 Solicitation Section B Does this mean that the “10 additional lunches” could actually consist of more than 10 targets? For example – 10 dual launches would equate to 20 targets actually being launched

That is correct.

38 Solicitation Section I, 52.229-10 Please confirm that the offers proposed prices in Section B need to include the NMGRT. This was an administrative error and the clause was removed. This action is not a cost-reimbursement contract, nor is real property in New Mexico directed.

39 Solicitation H, L, and M, and Attachment

1, PWS

Will the Government consider incorporating OCI requirements into sections of the RFP, including Sections H, L, and M that require offerors to disclose any potential OCI and provide a mitigation plan to eliminate or firewall OCI issues related to the ATFS mission?

Solicitation was edited to include an OCI requirement in Section L.

40 Attachment 1 PWS 3.6.2.21 PWS 3.6.2.21 states that “The contractor shall provide vehicles for subscale target system transportation, target recovery, and movement of all subscale target system GFE/GFM within 125 miles from the central base of operations facility, Building 8695, Orogrande Range Camp, NM”. (1) Please confirm that the costs of these contractor provided vehicles are to be included in the FFP CLIN X001.

Yes, these costs are included in CLIN series X0001.

41 Attachment 1 PWS 3.6.2.21 Is there a special type of vehicle needed for “target recovery” (i.e., crane) The Government will provide a crane for recovery of larger targets such as the BQM-34, BQM-167 and MQM-107.

The contractor will need to provide smaller recovery vehicles such as a 4x4 pick up for the MQM-178 and MQM-185 which do not require a crane.

42 Attachment 1 PWS 3.6.2.21 Should offerors provide a list of the proposed contractor provided vehicles in the Volume I – Factor 1 L.4.1 PWS technical approach response?

No

43 Solicitation L.4.1, L.5, M.4.1, M.5 Will the Government consider incorporating a requirement for a transition plan in the RFP Sections L and M? In addition to including a plan in the Technical volume, we recommend that the Government also include a requirement in the Past Performance volume for offerors to demonstrate their success in achieving complex transitions.

The Government has reviewed the comment has decided not to include the recommended change.

44 Solicitation L.4.1.1 Does the Government intend for the entire organizational section, which includes rationale for organizational approach, qualifications of management team, etc. be excluded from page count or just the actual organizational chart itself? Will the Government please clarify if all of L.4.1.1 is excluded from page count?

Each Offeror can design an Organization Chart to meet the requirement. IAW L.4.1.1, "Organizational Charts are not included in the page count". All other items not specifically identified will be included in the page count.

45 Solicitation L.4.1.4 Will the Government please clarify the difference in the labor category requirement from the positions required in the organizational chart, as well as the personnel requirement in L.4.1.2?

The Government has determined that section L.4.1.2 was redundant and is not required.

46 Solicitation L.5.1 We assume that consent letters are separate from the referenced letters of commitment. Is that correct? Also, if offerors have signed teaming agreements with subcontractors, will that suffice for past performance as well as technical volume requirements? Or is the Government looking for both teaming agreements and signed letters of commitment from companies?

Yes, IAW L.5.1, "The offeror shall also submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the offeror." This is different from Teaming Agreements or other agreements. Yes, it will that suffice for past performance as well as technical volume requirements.

47 Solicitation L.5.1.2 (b) There are no products to be provided on ATFS-4, recommend deleting the paragraph. The Government removed L.5.1.2 (b) from the solicitation.

48 Solicitation L.5.1.3 Please review and clarify that Section L.5.1.3 is to include current ATFS-4 contract information or information on the contract being cited in our Past Performance Volume.

The ATFS-4 scope is identical to the current ATFS contract scope.

49 Solicitation L.5.1.4 (1) We recommend that the Government remove individual past performance from Volume II. We recommend that the relevant individuals that would impact ATFS performance be submitted in the form of key personnel resumes so the Government can truly evaluate how those individuals will contribute to your mission. Will the Government revise L.5.1.4 to remove individual past performance?

If the Government leaves in this option for new entities, will you specify the meaning of the Letters of Commitment and specifically what role/amount of time they are committing to providing ATFS?

The Government has reviewed the comment has decided not to include the recommended change.

50 Solicitation L.5.1.3, L.5.1.6, L.7.7 (1) Recommend the Government provide a consistent definition of major subcontractor throughout the RFP.

(2) If the definition of major subcontractor includes “critical services”, request the Government define the term and/or provide examples of critical services.

The Government will provide a consistent definition of "major Subcontractor". The solicitation will be updated

51 Solicitation L.8, M Will the Government provide evaluation criteria as part of Section M for Volume V – Contracting Information, including the Property Management Plan?

The Government requires proposals to include a Property Management Plan due to the use of GFP. It is not evaluated, but if one is not provided the proposal is un-awardable.

52 Solicitation M.4 Will the Government provide evaluation criteria that align with L.4? Specifically, will the Government provide details on how they will evaluate the teaming approach as part of Volume I?

The Government will provide Solicitation Attachment 07 Cross-Reference Matrix. This will include a cross-walk of sections L&M.

53 Solicitation M.6.7 Will the Government provide more information on what will constitute an outstanding vs. good rating? For example, will it be measured by exceeding the 15% small business goal?

Offerors will be evaluated based on how the information in their small business participation volume demonstrates an approach and understanding of all the criteria within RFP sections L.6 and M.6; furthermore, each Offeror's small business participation volume will be assigned an adjectival rating in accordance with the ratings listed under RFP Section M.6.7.

54 Attachment 1, PWS 1 Introduction, The wording in the PWS allows from 95-105 launches. But CLINs X001 state 100 and CLINs X003 state not to exceed to 10. Please verify that all launches over 100 in a contract year would be reimbursed though the exercise of CLIN 0003?

PWS Section 1 will be edited to remove " (+/-) 5 launches. All launches in a contract PoP that exceed 100 will require the option CLIN to be exercised.

55 Attachment 1 PWS 2.1.3 Given the importance of an established quality system to the success of ATFS, we recommend that the Government include a requirement in Volume 1 Technical Section L requirements that aligns with the requirements in PWS 2.1.3.

Will the Government include a requirement in Section L for a quality approach, including a quality system plan?

The Government has reviewed the comment and has decided not to include the recommended change.

56 Attachment 1 PWS 2.5.6.3 Request the Government address the inconsistencies within the cited paragraphs. For example, what has to be approved by the Government—the plan or just the timeline? When must it be submitted for approval? If it has to be approved, why is it not considered a deliverable?

To lower the risk to the Government, we recommend the Government include a requirement for a transition plan as part of Section L and associated evaluation criteria for the plan in Section M.

The Government has reviewed the comment and has decided not to include the recommended change. Major dates of transition are included in PWS Appendix E, and transition planning IAW PWS 2.5.6 will be executed in conjunction with the Government.

57 Attachment 1 PWS 2.8.2 Will the Government revise Section L to include a SSPP to align with the PWS language? PWS Section 2.8.2 will be edited to remove, "in section L of the proposal" and will be replaced with, "with in 10 days of contract award."

58 Attachment 1 PWS 3.2.32 – 3.2.37, 3.6.2.21

Please confirm whether these costs will be reimbursed through CLIN X002 or are they to be included in the FFP CLIN X001?

The PWS was updated to address the ODC items.

59 Attachment 1 PWS 3.5.3.3 Can the Government please expand on the requirements of the ATFS-4 contractor to operate, maintain, train, and transport/move the launchers in support of the ATFS-4 contract?

Contractor is responsible for moving launchers around the range to remote launch sites. The contractor is also responsible for preventative maintenance check schedule for maintaining launchers in a serviceable condition.

Training for new team members is accomplished using the train the trainer method.

60 Attachment 1 PWS 3.7.3 Will the Government provide the missing sections 3.7, 3.7.1 and 3.7.2? If this is a numbering error, can the Government please clarify?

This was an administrative error, the PWS will be updated.

61 Attachment 1 PWS 3.7.3 (1) Since this work is under the FFP CLINs, please provide the number of ballistic targets, subsystems, etc. per year that will be required to be purchased/provided under the contract.

(2) Are the costs for shipping of the ballistic targets to Norway and Greece reimbursable or to be included in the FFP CLINs? If included, please provide numbers to cost for each year.

There will be no new acquisition of ballistics targets at the time of award; PWS Section 3.7 will me edited. The Government maintains an inventory of ballistic targets. Shipping costs are covered under the use of the Army transportation account.

62 Attachment 1 PWS, Appendix A Will the Government revise the CLIN structure to include options for rotary wing targets and ballistic missile targets? PWS section 3.7 has been adjusted. Those items are not required at this time, but may be needed in the future.

Ballistic targets are rarely used, possibly once every 3 years Rotary targets are not fielded at this point; once fielded they will fall into the 100 launches.

63 Attachment 1, PWS, Appendix A The RFP does not contain a provision for an “OPTION”. How many of these targets will the Government be providing to support the contract?

The PWS was updated to address the items.

64 Attachment 1 PWS, Appendix B.1 a-f We recommend that the Government include a requirement in Section L Volume II for offerors to demonstrate their ability to achieve these acceptable levels of performance on their directly relevant contracts featured in their proposal.

The Government has reviewed the comment has decided not to include the recommended change.

65 Attachment 1 PWS, Appendix E Will the Government clarify if these are included as options and, if so, revise the CLIN structure accordingly? The PWS has been updated, the word option was changed to N/A as those target do not need to be flight ready 28 days after contract award.

66 Attachment 1 PWS Appendix G Should this reference be MQM-185 Banshee The PWS was updated to address the items.

67 Attachment 1 PWS Appendix E There is a references to “RWT” and “BMT”, and “BQM-167” Targets with Operational Ready and Flight Service dates as “Option Determined. Please clarify the meaning of “Option Determined”.

The PWS was updated to address the items.