Attachment 9 - Questions and Answers Matrix (Final RFP) Government Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 31 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W911QX23R0002P1
About this file
This document contains the government's responses to industry questions regarding a final request for proposals (RFP) for analytical services. Key details include:
The RFP seeks proposals for performance of analytical services associated with target descriptions, vulnerability, survivability, and kinetic/non-kinetic weapon effectiveness studies, support to current operations, and the Joint Live Fire program for the Department of the Army Materiel Command Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground. The government anticipates awarding approximately four indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts, with at least three reserved for small businesses. Proposals are due by August 10, 2023, representing an extension from the original due date. The RFP no longer requires top secret safeguarding of information or facility clearances at submission; those requirements will be determined at the task order level.
View the file
Other files
Show all 16
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Draft RFP CRM
| ANALYTICAL SERVICES FINAL RFP Question Matrix [W911QX23R0002] | |||||||||
| # | Company Name | Point of Contact and Title | Telephone Number | E-mail Address | Fax Number | Document In Question (PWS, Solicitation, Cover letter, Attachment etc.) | Page # & or Para # of Document In Question | Question, Comment or Recommendation | |
| (Note: use "Wrap Text") | Government's Response to Industry | ||||||||
| 1 | Final RFP | Final RFP Paragraph # | Final RFP Questions, Comments, and Suggestions | ||||||
| 2 | Applied Research Associates | Jamie Stacey | 919-926-2519 | jstacy@ara.com | 919-582-3301 | Solicitation | Section L.7.2.1 | The RFP states ‘or a copy of any letter(s) from a U.S. Government organization approving their accounting system (e.g., DCAA/DCMA) along with the offeror’s current Accounting Policies and Practice.’ The Government response to the draft RFP questions from Industry stated that an approved accounting system letter from DCAA/DCMA is sufficient, but the final RFP still states that current accounting policies and practices are still required. |
| Section L.1 states ‘In the event of conflict between any provided clarification and the RFP, the RFP shall take precedence,’ so that is why the follow-up question: Can the Government please confirm that accounting policies and procedures are not required, if the Offeror has an approved accounting system? | The Government confirms that if an Offeror has an approved accounting system letter from DCAA/DCMA that this is an acceptable replacement for current Accounting Polices and Practice. The language in the RFP has been updated to read that an approved accounting system letter from DCAA/DCMA is sufficient. The language "along with current accounting policies and practies" has been deleted. | |||||||||
| 3 | Applied Research Associates | Jamie Stacey | 919-926-2519 | jstacy@ara.com | 919-582-3301 | Solicitation | Section L.3.3.2.1 | The RFP states that both the Prime Offeror and any teaming partners shall meet both Entry Gate 1 and 2 requirements. However, for Entry Gate 2 and the need for TS level storage, many small businesses, despite having a TS FCL, have only secret storage or no storage at all. The requirement to possess storage at the TS level, even if the work is not classified, hinders the ability to onboard teammates in support of small business participation goals. Would the Government consider revising the Entry Gate 2 requirement to only be required at the TO level based on the TO SOW, as applicable? | The Government is eliminating the requirement for TOP SECRET Safeguarding of information within the Entry Gate 2 criteria. The safeguarding of information will be determined at the task order level based on the Performance Work Statement and issuance of a DD 254. | |
| 4 | Altus, LLC | Payne Ford, Director of Engineering | 410-457-8115 | pford@altus-engineering.com | 410-457-8116 | Attachment 1 - Section L | L.3.3.2 | Requiring an FCL with Safe guarding at the Top-Secret Level is very onerous for Small Businesses, and is likely unnecessary at the IDIQ level, especially given historical task order requirements. Would the Government consider removing safeguarding requirements at the IDIQ level to ensure adequate levels of Small Business participation and competition? | The Government is eliminating the requirement for TOP SECRET Safeguarding of information within the Entry Gate 2 criteria. The safeguarding of information will be determined at the task order level based on the Performance Work Statement and issuance of a DD 254. | |
| 5 | Altus, LLC | Payne Ford, Director of Engineering | 410-457-8115 | pford@altus-engineering.com | 410-457-8116 | Attachment 1 - Section L | L.2 | Can you please provide more information on how you would like companies to redact their information on the secondary copy of the proposal? Do you prefer a black box over all instances of the company's name, or should the name be replaced with an alternate word or phrase? | The Government will accept proper redaction utilizing Adobe Acrobat. Steps for proper redaction: 1. Open Document, 2. Select Edit/ Text & Images, 3. Redact necessary information, 4. Click Apply, 5. Ensure SANITIZE button is blue, 6. Click Continue, 7. Name Document, 8. Click Save, and 9. Open Document, select File/Image/JPEG, then Click Save. The Government will accept proper redaction utilizing Microsoft Word by replacing the redacted language with the word [REDACTED] all CAPS & Bold bracketed. | |
| 6 | Altus, LLC | Payne Ford, Director of Engineering | 410-457-8115 | pford@altus-engineering.com | 410-457-8116 | Attachment 1 - Section L | L.1 | Given some of the significant changes and clarifications between the Draft and Final RFPs and the overall scale of the required proposal, we ask that the Government extend the due date of the proposal by 2 weeks. This will help to ensure adequate competition and proposal compliance, especially from Small Businesses with fewer B&P resources. | Due to the overall scale of the required proposal, the Government will extend the due date of the proposals from 27 July 2023 to 10 August 2023. | |
| 7 | Corvid Technologies, LLC | Tad Dunn, Capture Manager | 704-799-6944 | tad.dunn@corvidtec.com | 704-799-7974 | Attachment 10 | Table - Escalation & Indirect Rates | Is the escalation listed in Attachment 10 required or can bidders propose their own escalation rate? | The escalation rate in Attachment 10 is for "example only" and each Offeror can proposed their own escalation rates. | |
| 8 | Corvid Technologies, LLC | Tad Dunn, Capture Manager | 704-799-6944 | tad.dunn@corvidtec.com | 704-799-7974 | STO | Paragraph 2.4 | What is the notional timeline for the Sample Task order? It says 12 months PoP, but is there a start date we can assume for the purposes of labor rates? | The Government proposes a nominal period of performance of 12-months for the Sample Task order with fictional dates 1 September 2023 -31 August 2024. | |
| 9 | Corvid Technologies, LLC | Tad Dunn, Capture Manager | 704-799-6944 | tad.dunn@corvidtec.com | 704-799-7974 | Section L | L.4.1.2.4 - L.4.1.2.5 | Instructions for the Technical Volume require a detailed approach for the IDIQ PWS and the STO. The STO has specific tasks enabling bidders to provide information such as milestones, schedules, plans for interface, efficiencies, personnel, etc. (required by L.4.1.2.4 through L.4.1.2.5), but the IDIQ PWS does not have the specifics necessary to provide an approach with this level of detail. Please clarify whether the information requested in L.4.1.2.4 and L.4.1.2.5 is required for both the IDIQ PWS and STO, or only the STO. If required for both, can the Government provide additional information for bidders to use in order to address the specific requirement for milestones, schedules, etc.? | No further information will be provided or should be needed. Correct, responses will be required for both Sample Task PWS and IDIQ PWS, but at different level of fidelity and reason. Sample Task Order PWS response will be specific to example task order requirements and detailed given the information provided that enables higher fidelity responses. The Sample Task PWS response is meant to understand approaches and responses to example task orders that could be solicited under the IDIQ PWS scope. The IDIQ PWS will be more general focused on capabilities and approach on vendor’s ability to address the breadth of scope in the IDIQ PWS. The IDIQ PWS response is to provide vendor capability insight across the full IDIQ PWS scope, which cannot be covered or done in one sample task order. | |
| 10 | Corvid Technologies, LLC | Tad Dunn, Capture Manager | 704-799-6944 | tad.dunn@corvidtec.com | 704-799-7974 | Section L | L.2 | For the redacted submission, are all volumes required? | The Government requires redaction for all volumes. | |
| 11 | Corvid Technologies, LLC | Tad Dunn, Capture Manager | 704-799-6944 | tad.dunn@corvidtec.com | 704-799-7974 | RFP, Section L, Section M | RFP Page 18, Paragraph 12.1 & |
Section L Page 3, Paragraph L.3.3.2 & Page 4, Paragraph L.3.3.2.1.2 & Section M, Page 4, Paragraph M.2.1.2 Evaluation Criteria The RFP states " The contractor shall possess or be capable of obtaining a TOP SECRET facility clearance as prescribed by DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification. Contractor performance may be at the contractor facility or the User Agency requiring the support. The contractor may receive, generate, and safeguard classified information up to the SECRET level at their facility."
Section L states "The Offeror must provide their company name and primary CAGE Code for the government to verify in the National Industrial Security System database (NISS) showing that they possess and active Top-Secret FCL and documentation safeguarding at the time of proposal submission. " Section M states "The Government will review the Offeror’s initial proposal for a written statement demonstrating the Offeror (and any teaming partner(s) is currently approved for a FCL and safeguarding at the Top-Secret Level."
Will the Government please confirm that the Offeror is required to have an FCL at the Top Secret level and safeguarding of documents only at the Secret level. Current language in the Step Two Gate Criteria reads as follows:
"The contractor may receive, generate, and safeguard classified information up to the TOP SECRET level at their facility".
Language for the Step Two Gate criteria will be amended to read the same as the Performance Work Statement (PWS):
| “The contractor may receive, generate, and safeguard classified information up to the SECRET level at their facility." | The Government is eliminating the requirement for TOP SECRET Safeguarding of information within the Entry Gate 2 criteria. The safeguarding of information will be determined at the task order level based on the Performance Work Statement and issuance of a DD 254. | |||||||||
| 12 | SURVICE | Tim Farmer, Aberdeen Research Operation Manager | 410-273-7722 | tim.farmer@survice.com | 410-272-7082 | Draft RFP Q&A Matrix Answer #23; Attachment L | Page 4, L.3.3.2. | Safeguarding of documents at Top Secret level can only be granted when performing a contract that requires it. A contractor cannot request TS safeguarding/storage until the government issues a DD254 that lists the requirement for us. The majority of JTCG/ME TO awards have not required this. Is this truly a requirement of offerors, or can the Safeguarding requirement be lessened to the original classification level of Secret only? | The Government is eliminating the requirement for TOP SECRET Safeguarding of information within the Entry Gate 2 criteria. The safeguarding of information will be determined at the task order level based on the Performance Work Statement and issuance of a DD 254. | |
| 13 | SURVICE | Tim Farmer, Aberdeen Research Operation Manager | 410-273-7722 | tim.farmer@survice.com | 410-272-7082 | Attachment L | Page 4, L.3.3.2. | This section states the prime and any team members must have a TS FCL. Requiring the prime to team only with team members with a TS when the majority of the work under this contract has historically only been S puts a large burden on the prime and eliminates small businesses that could provide effective support at the S level. Will the government change this to prime only? | The Government requirement that the Prime and any team member shall demonstrate that it has an approved Facility Clearance at the minimum of Top-Secret Level at time of submission of their proposal remains unchanged. | |
| 14 | SURVICE | Tim Farmer, Aberdeen Research Operation Manager | 410-273-7722 | tim.farmer@survice.com | 410-272-7082 | Attachment L | Page 6, L.4.1.2.4, L.4.1.2.5 | The requirement to address both Basic PWS and Sample Task PWS in their entirety is a big change in scope from the Draft RFP to the Final RFP and seems overly burdensome at IDIQ level. For example, L.4.1.2.4.1 Provide a detailed, technically sound, logical, and efficient approach to completing the PWS and Sample Task PWS requirements that include a description of the sequence of steps to be taken, the critical paths and milestones, realistic schedules, and plans for interface and integration among task(s). | ||
| As written an offeror must provide the same level of detail for the entire PWS and the Sample Task. This is more than Understanding, this also addresses Approach which is part of Subfactor B and not A. Will the government change the requirement to only require Understanding for the PWS and Understanding and Approach for the Sample Task? Would the government consider revamping the RFP to something more akin to RS3 Army Modernization Priorities (AMP) IDIQ RFP? At 10x value ($900M) at the IDIQ level, AMP only required offerors to provide a 15 page technical, 10 page management, 15 page past performance. The JTCG/ME could reduce the RFP to require offerors to show understanding and recent relevant experience performing in scope tasks, leaving the approach for TO competition level. | Required for both, but Sample Task PWS will be specific and detailed whereas IDIQ PWS will be a general focused on approach. Government will not consider revamping RFP. | |||||||||
| 15 | SURVICE | Tim Farmer, Aberdeen Research Operation Manager | 410-273-7722 | tim.farmer@survice.com | 410-272-7082 | Attachment L | Page 6, L.4.1.2.5 | L.4.1.2.5 Subfactor (b) states this section applies to the PWS and Sample Task PWS. In subsection L.4.1.2.5.1 it only mentions PWS. Does this imply overall or Sample Task PWS? Will the government clarify. | Required for both, but Sample Task PWS will be specific and detailed whereas IDIQ PWS will be a general focused on approach. | |
| 16 | SURVICE | Tim Farmer, Aberdeen Research Operation Manager | 410-273-7722 | tim.farmer@survice.com | 410-272-7082 | Attachment L | Page 6, L4.1.2.5 | L.4.1.2.5.1 states the offeror is required to provide a narrative of the technical approach for each technical requirement in the PWS. If it is assumed that this is for both the overall and the Sample Task, there is no differentiation in level of detail between the overall and Sample Task narratives and the government is essentially requiring two sample tasks with one being for the entire PWS. If the government intended the narrative for the overall PWS to be top-level, then subfactor (a) already addresses that. Will the government change subfactor (b) to be for the Sample Task only or clarify the level of detail required for each? | The information required by Paragraph L.4.1.2.5 Subfactor (b) should address both the Base PWS and the Sample Task PWS. The response should include a summary narrative to technical implementation of the Base PWS and a detailed narrative of the Sample Task. | |
| 17 | SURVICE | Tim Farmer, Aberdeen Research Operation Manager | 410-273-7722 | tim.farmer@survice.com | 410-272-7082 | Attachment L and M | Att L Page 1, Proposal Submission ; Att M Page 1, M.1.1 | Att L states there will be approximately 5 IDIQ awards and Att M states to at least 4. Will the government clarify the number of anticipated awards? | The Government anticipates four (4) IDIQ contracts from this RFP with at least three (3) IDIQ contracts reserved for Small Businesses. Section L has been updated to state, "The Government anticipates approximately four (4) IDIQ contracts…" | |
| 18 | SURVICE | Tim Farmer, Aberdeen Research Operation Manager | 410-273-7722 | tim.farmer@survice.com | 410-272-7082 | Attachment M | M.5 Factor 4 | Small Business Participation requirement dictates that offerors build a team at the IDIQ level comprised of a variety of socio-economic small businesses. This seems excessive at IDIQ level to require teammates, especially for any small business offeror that 1) has capability to perform without a number of teammates, or 2) based on improbable case to be made to teammates for the probability of a distribution of awards evidenced by historical TO awards. What is the rationale for requiring a small business offeror to have a diverse socio-economic team and making that an evaluation factor? | If the Offeror, whether small or other than small intends on performing the entirety of the work in-house, then the offeror should provide an explanation as part of the Small Business Participation for doing so. Small Business Prime Offerors in this case receive credit, for purposes of evaluation, for SB and other qualified socio-economic categories for the work they self-perform. All Offerors will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria outlined for small business participation for the work performed as a Small business prime and/or proposed small business subcontractors. | |
| 19 | SURVICE | Tim Farmer, Aberdeen Research Operation Manager | 410-273-7722 | tim.farmer@survice.com | 410-272-7082 | Attachment L & M | L.4.1.2.10.1; M.3.2.4.3 | Element C: Personnel Qual/Exp Instructions to Offerors states, "...evidence of required current DoD clearance…". Must all proposed personnel including the resumes for up to eight personnel be required to have Top Secret clearance? | No, not all proposed personnel must have TS clearance. The Government has revised the language of Paragraph L.4.1.2.10.1 to state "Include resumes for no more than eight (8) personnel (including subcontractors), which should validate education, skills, certifications, evidence of a current SECRET DoD clearance at a minimum and experience in the PWS task requirements (e.g., personnel qualification standards and recentness or experience)." The language at Paragraph M.3.2.4.3.1 has been revised to state "The Offeror shall provide no more than eight (8) resumes (including subcontractors) of proposed personnel that demonstrate education, skills, certifications, evidence of a current SECRET DoD clearance at a minimum and experience in the PWS and Sample Task PWS requirements." | |
| 20 | PeopleTec, Inc. | Natalie Falkenberry | 256-425-4298 | natalie.falkenberry@peopletec.com | N/A | Final RFP | L.2.1 | Does the 25 page limit for the Past Performance Volume include Past Performance Questionnaires and Subcontractor Letters of Consent? | No, Past Performance Questionnaires and Subcontractor Letters of Consent are not included in the Past Performance volume page limit. Section L.2.4 has been updated to add these items to the list | |
| 21 | PeopleTec, Inc. | Natalie Falkenberry | 256-425-4298 | natalie.falkenberry@peopletec.com | N/A | Final RFP | L.5.1.2.3 | L.5.1.2.3 limits The Table of Contents and Summary Pages(s) to five pages. But Paragraph L.2.4 states that Table of Contents do not count towards the page count of a volume. Please advise. | The page limit in paragraph L.5.1.2.3 for the Table of Contents and Summary Pages for Volume III Past Performance shall be no more than 5 pages and will not count toward the page limit for this volume. | |
| 22 | PeopleTec, Inc. | Natalie Falkenberry | 256-425-4298 | natalie.falkenberry@peopletec.com | N/A | L.5.1.2.3 | Paragraph L.5.1.2.3 includes past performance questionnaires in the organization of the Past Performance Volume. However, paragraph L.5.1.2.4.1 states that past performance questionnaires will be completed by the points of contact and emailed directly to the contract specialist and contracting officer. This means the offeror will not have the completed questionnaires for inclusion in the submitted Past Performance Volume. Please advise if and how the offerors should include the past performance questionnaires in the Past Performance Volume. | Volume III - Past Performance will contain the Offerors Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) with Part I completed by the Offeror. The Contracting Office will update our file with the completed PPQ of Part II after receipt from your point of contact. | ||
| 23 | PeopleTec, Inc. | Natalie Falkenberry | 256-425-4298 | natalie.falkenberry@peopletec.com | N/A | Final RFP | L.3.3.2 | Step Two Gate Two: Facility Clearance Gate states that Offerors (and any team members) shall provide a written statement demonstrating the Offeror is currently approved for a Facility at Clearance (FCL) at the minimum of the Top-Secret Level at time of submission. |
We respectfully request that the Step Two Gate Two Clearance Gate be revised to remove the requirement for (ANY TEAM MEMBERS) from the requirement.
| At a minimum, please revise to state (AND ANY TEAM MEMBERS AT TIME OF AWARD) or (AND ANY TEAM MEMBERS MUST BE ELIGLBLE AT TIME OF SUBMISSION). Eligibility can be defined as the principals of the company currently holds an active T/S clearance). | The Government requirement that any team member shall demonstrate that it has an approved Facility Clearance at the minimum of Top-Secret Level at time of submission of their proposal remains unchanged. | |||||||||
| 24 | PeopleTec, Inc. | Natalie Falkenberry | 256-425-4298 | natalie.falkenberry@peopletec.com | N/A | Final RFP | The Past Performance Questionnaire states that the customers filling out the questionnaire must complete the form by 12 June 2023. Please update the questionnaire with a corrected date so our customers know the deadline to submit them to the Government POCs for this procurement. We also request a day-for-day extension from the release of the RFP to the date the new questionnaires are provided. We want to ensure our customers have a reasonable timeframe to process the document. | The Government will update the date Attachment 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire to avoid any confusion to potential Offerors. | ||
| 25 | PeopleTec, Inc. | Natalie Falkenberry | 256-425-4298 | natalie.falkenberry@peopletec.com | N/A | Final RFP | L.3.3.2 | We request that the Government reduce the requirement for Top Secret safeguarding to Secret safeguarding. Requiring Top Secret safeguarding significantly limits competition and eliminates otherwise competitive offerors. | The Government is eliminating the requirement for TOP SECRET Safeguarding of information within the Entry Gate 2 criteria. The safeguarding of information will be determined at the task order level based on the Performance Work Statement and issuance of a DD 254. | |
| 26 | ||||||||||
| 27 | ||||||||||
| 28 | ||||||||||
| 29 | ||||||||||
| 30 | ||||||||||
| 31 | ||||||||||
| 32 | ||||||||||
| 33 | ||||||||||
| 34 | ||||||||||
| 35 | ||||||||||
| 36 | ||||||||||
| 37 | ||||||||||
| 38 | ||||||||||
| 39 | ||||||||||
| 40 | ||||||||||
| 41 | ||||||||||
| 42 | ||||||||||
| 43 | ||||||||||
| 44 | ||||||||||
| 45 | ||||||||||
| 46 | ||||||||||
| 47 | ||||||||||
| 48 | ||||||||||
| 49 | ||||||||||
| 50 | ||||||||||
| 51 | ||||||||||
| 52 | ||||||||||
| 53 | ||||||||||
| 54 | ||||||||||
| 55 | ||||||||||
| 56 | ||||||||||
| 57 | ||||||||||
| 58 | ||||||||||
| 59 | ||||||||||
| 60 | ||||||||||
| 61 | ||||||||||
| 62 | ||||||||||
| 63 | ||||||||||
| 64 | ||||||||||
| 65 | ||||||||||
| 66 | ||||||||||
| 67 | ||||||||||
| 68 | ||||||||||
| 69 | ||||||||||
| 70 | ||||||||||
| 71 | ||||||||||
| 72 | ||||||||||
| 73 | ||||||||||
| 74 | ||||||||||
| 75 | ||||||||||
| 76 | ||||||||||
| 77 | ||||||||||
| 78 | ||||||||||
| 79 | ||||||||||
| 80 | ||||||||||
| 81 | ||||||||||
| 82 | ||||||||||
| 83 | ||||||||||
| 84 | ||||||||||
| 85 | ||||||||||
| 86 | ||||||||||
| 87 | ||||||||||
| 88 | ||||||||||
| 89 | ||||||||||
| 90 | ||||||||||
| 91 | ||||||||||
| 92 | ||||||||||
| 93 | ||||||||||
| 94 | ||||||||||
| 95 | ||||||||||
| 96 | ||||||||||
| 97 | ||||||||||
| 98 | ||||||||||
| 99 | ||||||||||
| 100 | ||||||||||
| 101 | ||||||||||
| 102 | ||||||||||
| 103 | ||||||||||
| 104 | ||||||||||
| 105 | ||||||||||
| 106 | ||||||||||
| 107 | ||||||||||
| 108 | ||||||||||
| 109 | ||||||||||
| 110 | ||||||||||
| 111 | ||||||||||
| 112 | ||||||||||
| 113 | ||||||||||
| 114 | ||||||||||
| 115 | ||||||||||
| 116 | ||||||||||
| 117 | ||||||||||
| 118 | ||||||||||
| 119 | ||||||||||
| 120 | ||||||||||
| 121 | ||||||||||
| 122 | ||||||||||
| 123 | ||||||||||
| 124 | ||||||||||
| 125 | ||||||||||
| 126 | ||||||||||
| 127 | ||||||||||
| 128 | ||||||||||
| 129 | ||||||||||
| 130 | ||||||||||
| 131 | ||||||||||
| 132 | ||||||||||
| 133 | ||||||||||
| 134 | ||||||||||
| 135 | ||||||||||
| 136 | ||||||||||
| 137 | ||||||||||
| 138 | ||||||||||
| 139 | ||||||||||
| 140 | ||||||||||
| 141 | ||||||||||
| 142 | ||||||||||
| 143 | ||||||||||
| 144 | ||||||||||
| 145 | ||||||||||
| 146 | ||||||||||
| 147 | ||||||||||
| 148 | ||||||||||
| 149 | ||||||||||
| 150 | ||||||||||
| 151 | ||||||||||
| 152 | ||||||||||
| 153 | ||||||||||
| 154 | ||||||||||
| 155 | ||||||||||
| 156 | ||||||||||
| 157 | ||||||||||
| 158 | ||||||||||
| 159 | ||||||||||
| 160 | ||||||||||
| 161 | ||||||||||
| 162 | ||||||||||
| 163 | ||||||||||
| 164 | ||||||||||
| 165 | ||||||||||
| 166 | ||||||||||
| 167 | ||||||||||
| 168 | ||||||||||
| 169 | ||||||||||
| 170 | ||||||||||
| 171 | ||||||||||
| 172 | ||||||||||
| 173 | ||||||||||
| 174 | ||||||||||
| 175 | ||||||||||
| 176 | ||||||||||
| 177 |
mailto:pford@altus-engineering.commailto:tim.farmer@survice.commailto:tim.farmer@survice.commailto:tim.farmer@survice.commailto:tim.farmer@survice.commailto:tim.farmer@survice.commailto:tim.farmer@survice.commailto:natalie.falkenberry@peopletec.commailto:natalie.falkenberry@peopletec.commailto:natalie.falkenberry@peopletec.commailto:natalie.falkenberry@peopletec.commailto:pford@altus-engineering.commailto:natalie.falkenberry@peopletec.commailto:natalie.falkenberry@peopletec.commailto:pford@altus-engineering.commailto:tad.dunn@corvidtec.commailto:tad.dunn@corvidtec.commailto:tad.dunn@corvidtec.commailto:tad.dunn@corvidtec.commailto:tim.farmer@survice.commailto:tim.farmer@survice.com
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .