W9128F22R0047 P0001_OSS-SERE_SF1442_Specs.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

OSS AFE/SERE OPS Facility SGBP212903, OFFUTT AFB, NE

See attached documentation for content of the amendment revisions to solicitation

Date for receipt of proposals is 17 OCT 2022 at 1400 hours

Government Point of Contact: MAJ Brandon Wagner,Contract Specialist (402) 995-2905

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Oct-2022

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W9128F22R0047

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-Aug-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

06-Oct-2022

CODE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DIST

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVENUE

OMAHA NE 68102-4901

W9128F 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W9128F22R0047

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT NO. 0001

4 OCT 2022

Solicitation No. W9128F22R0047

Date of Issue: 31 AUG 2022 Date of Receiving Proposals: 17 OCT 2022

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 0001 to Request for Proposal Solicitation Package for Design and Construction of OSS AFE/SERE OPS Facility SGBP212903 AT OFFUTT AFB, NE

TO: Prospective Offerors and Others Concerned

1. The specifications and drawings for subject project are hereby modified as follows (revise all specification indices, attachment lists, and drawing indices accordingly).

a. Specifications (New and/or Revised and Reissued). Delete and substitute or add specification pages or sections as noted below. The substituted pages or sections are revised and reissued with this amendment.

For convenience, on the revised specification pages, changes have been identified by “[*Am- [1]]”(underlining of added text and/or strikeout of deleted text).

Pages or Sections Deleted Pages or Sections Substituted or Added 00 10 00-SF1442 00 10 00-SF1442* 00 10 00-3 00 10 00-3* 00 21 00 00 21 00*

REGISTER REGISTER*

01 35 26 01 35 26* ** ** ** 01 35 29.13 ** ** ** 02 61 13

** ** ** 02 61 13AT1

** ** ** 02 61 13AT2

** ** ** 02 61 13AT3

** ** ** 02 61 13AT4

b. Drawings (New and/or Revised and Reissued). Delete and substitute or add drawing pages or sections as noted below. The substituted pages or sections are revised and reissued with this amendment.

i. A-1102

ii. A-

iii. I-

iv. I-

2. This amendment is a part of the proposing papers and its receipt shall be acknowledged. All other conditions and requirements of the request for proposal remain unchanged.

3. Electronic Proposal/Email. See section 00 22 00 for how to submit electronic proposals.

4. Electric Offers will be received until 2:00 p.m., local time at place of receiving proposals, 17 OCT 2022, as stated in the Request For Proposal.

Attachments:

Section 00 10 00, SF1442 and CLIN Pricing Schedule and 00 21 00 (provided under ate cover)

Spec Pages listed in 1.a. above Drawings listed in 1.b. above (provided under separate cover) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District 1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4901

4 OCT 2022

jmh/2181

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION, CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBER (CLIN) SCHEDULE

The required response date/time 17-Oct-2022 02:00 PM has been added.

CLIN 0004

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

Entire work complete to contract with OPPD for Construction of Electrical Site Work as shown on the project drawings. All Offerors shall place $250,000 as the price for this line item. See Note 3 below.

To:

Entire work complete to contract with OPPD for Construction of Electrical Site Work as shown on the project drawings. All Offerors shall place $73,000 as the price for this line item. See Note 3 below.

The following have been modified:

SUPPLEMENTAL PRICE BREAKDOWN

CONTRACT LINE ITEM PRICING SCHEDULE

ITEM

NO.

DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT

PRICE

AMOUNT

BASIC ITEMS

Entire work complete to design OSS/SERE Facility at Offutt AFB

Job

XXX

Entire work complete to construct OSS/SERE Facility at Offutt AFB excluding items listed below.

Entire work complete to construct site work to the five-foot building line.

Entire work complete to contract with OPPD for Construction of Electrical Site Work as shown on the project drawings. All Offerors shall place $73,000 as the price for this line item.

See Note 3 below.

$XXX, XXX

TOTAL BASIC AMOUNT $________________________

OPTION ITEMS

[Option]

Entire work to procure and install Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E) (O&M-funded)

[Option]

Entire work complete to procure and install Audio/Visual (A/V) Equipment (O&M-funded)

TOTAL AMOUNT (BASIC PLUS OPTIONS) $________________________

OFFEROR'S NAME: ____________________________

NOTES:

1. See SECTION 00 21 00, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (RFP) for evaluation of options. The

Government reserves the right to exercise Option Items No. 0005 & 0006 within 14 months after issuance of Notice to Proceed. Abbreviations: Operations & Maintenance (O&M).

2. Prices must be entered for all items of the schedule. Total amounts submitted without prices being entered on individual items will be rejected. Additions will be subject to verification by the Government. In case of variation between the Job (lump-sum) prices and the total amount, the lump-sum prices will be considered the price submitted.

3. All costs associated with this work will be paid by the Contractor directly to OPPD. The Government will release funds to the Contractor to pay OPPD costs as installation occurs up to the total amount listed in Item 0004 as associated with electrical connections made by OPPD, except for any additional costs incurred as a direct result of Contractor negligence, which will not be reimbursed. Remainder of electrical site work will be constructed by the Contractor under Item 0002 and 0003.

4. Contract duration for this project is 550 calendar days from NTP.

SECTION 00 22 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION 00 22 00 - Evaluation Criteria

1. BASIS OF AWARD

The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria described within the solicitation and intends award a Firm Fixed Price Contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best value to the Government as described in FAR 15.101-1.

For this requirement the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) are the same person. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without conducting discussions with Offerors. However, in the event the SSA concludes conducting discussions is in the best interest of the Government, the SSA will document the rationale for the competitive range determination. If the SSA determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the SSA may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

2. DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

Offerors may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 Preaward Debriefing of offerors or FAR

15.506 Postaward Debriefing of Offerors.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

Table 1: Evaluation Factors

Description Descending Order of Importance

Factor 1 – Vol I, Tab D - Past Performance 1st Most Important Factor

Factor 2 – Vol I, Tab E - Project Management Plan 2nd Most Important Factor

Factor 3 – Vol I, Tab F - Key Personnel 3rd Most Important Factor

Factor 4 – Vol II, Tab B - Pricing Schedule All technical factors, combined, are approximately equal to price

FACTOR 1 – VOL I, TAB D - PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The Government’s overall confidence level for this factor will be based on the Offeror’s Past Performance to include recency, relevancy, and the quality of performance.

Past Performance on projects will examine how well an Offeror has performed on relevant projects considering such criteria as: cost growth and adherence to budget; time growth, timeliness, and adherence to schedule; quality and quality control measures; management of personnel and subcontractors; compliance with safety standards/safety plan; overall customer satisfaction;

responsiveness to customer concerns.

CPARS/CCASS records will be given more weight than Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs). The Government may, at its discretion, contact individuals other than those identified by the Offeror as references to verify the information contained therein. The Government reserves the right to consider all aspects of an Offeror's performance history but may attribute more importance to work that is similar to the scope contemplated for this project.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably regarding past performance, the SSA may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best-value tradeoff, if the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

Recency - As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Projects completed within seven (7) years of this solicitation are considered relevant. More recent projects will have more impact on the overall past performance evaluation. However, they may or may not overshadow older performance records considering the nature of the ratings, statements, and volume of records.

Relevancy - The first aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is to determine how relevant previous experience accomplished by the Offeror is to the anticipated work to be accomplished under this project scope. With respect to relevancy, more relevant Past Performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance confidence assessment. Some examples of projects that might be deemed more relevant are projects that occurred on active-duty military installations or final construction costs that are close or exceed this project. Relevancy is not a separate proposal rating but is used to develop an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment.

The four levels of relevancy definitions are:

Very Relevant - Present/Past Performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant - Present/Past Performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant - Present/Past Performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant - Present/Past Performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Contractor Performance. The second aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is to determine the quality of the performance on past contracts. The Past Performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s Past Performance on past contracts; rather, the Past Performance evaluation process gathers information from stakeholders on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Source Selection Evaluation Board will review this Past Performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

The Government will review all past performance information submitted, and may, at its sole discretion, review additional Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations for recency, relevance, and quality.

The Government will assign a final Performance Confidence Assessment for this factor based on the evaluation of recent and relevant past performance information and the quality of past performance on prior contract efforts. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using the terms below:

Substantial Confidence - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) - No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. Per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(a) (2) (iv), “In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant Past Performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance.”

In the case of an offeror without a record of recent, relevant past performance or for which information on past performance is not available, the offeror may receive a Neutral Confidence rating which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

The Government will evaluate the relative merits of each Offeror's past performance by following the recency, relevancy, and confidence assessment procedures. The evaluation of past performance will examine how well Offerors have performed on recent and relevant projects considering such criteria as but not limited to: comparison of past experience to requirements contemplated under this scope;

frequency of performance of similar projects; length of work history; performance metrics and trends;

customer satisfaction; performance evaluation ratings; cost growth and adherence to budget; time growth, timeliness, adherence to schedule; quality, quality control, management of personnel and subcontractors, compliance with safety standards/safety plan, regulatory compliance, overall customer satisfaction, and responsiveness to customer concerns.

Projects submitted without qualifying past performance data to support them may be considered for relevancy; however, the lack of qualifying performance data may have a significant negative impact on the confidence assessment.

If an Offeror submits no past performance evaluations and the Government is unable to locate evaluations in CPARS or other performance rating systems, a Neutral Confidence rating will be given.

CPARS/CCASS Ratings will be given more weight than PPQs. The Government may, at its discretion, contact individuals other than those identified by the Offeror as references to verify the information contained therein. The Government reserves the right to consider all aspects of an Offeror's performance history but may attribute more importance to work that was similar to the scope and types of projects as stated in Section 00 21 00.

The Government will consider the experience provided in the example projects when determining the relevancy of past performance data and use those submissions as a part of the confidence assessment.

A lack of, or degraded, recency and relevancy may impact the confidence assessment that the Government provides.

FACTORS 2 & 3 -TECHNICAL RATINGS DEFINED

The evaluation ratings for the technical factors will be on an adjectival basis in conjunction with a narrative composed of the discussion of the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies of the proposal. The Source Selection Evaluation Board will use a combined technical/risk rating system that includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The combined technical/risk ratings, presented in Table 1, will be used to evaluate Factor 2, Project Management Plan, and Factor 3, Key Personnel. Factor 1 will be evaluated per the information above.

Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings – Factors 2 & 3

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

1.1. Rating Definitions:

1.1.1. Strength - an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

1.1.2. Significant Strength - an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

1.1.3. Weakness - a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

1.1.4. Significant Weakness - a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

1.1.5. Deficiency – a material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

FACTOR 2 – VOL I, TAB E - PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION

Strengths may be given for each the following criteria:

Proposals that demonstrate a detailed and coherent plan and provides logical methodology to execute the entire scope of work. Joint Venture/Subcontractors participants’ contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

Proposals that offer methods to streamline design and/or construction, manage labor and other resource constraints to reduce costs and support an aggressive schedule to completion.

Proposals with schedules that demonstrate an understanding of processes inherent to

USACE/AFCEC.

Proposals that demonstrate a very clear understanding of the project’s risks and how to best mitigate them.

Self-performance of major construction tasks by the Prime Contractor.

Any other aspect of a proposal that the evaluators and/or the SSA believe enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Weaknesses may be given for each of the following criteria:

A project management plan that does not demonstrate a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements.

A risk assessment that does not provide specific risks to this project and a demonstration of how to mitigate those risks.

A proposed schedule whose duration is greater than that stated in the subject solicitation, without relevant discussion for exceeding duration.

A proposed schedule which does not address the five (5) features as described under Section 00 21 00: Summary Schedule bullets one (1) through five (5).

Any other aspect of a proposal that the Government identifies as a flaw that may increase cost or risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiencies shall be given for each of the following criteria:

A Project Management Plan that does not demonstrate the Prime Offeror as the lead entity for this project.

Omission of one (1) or more of the four (4) elements as stated above for the Project Management Plan (Organization Approach, Technical Approach, Risk Assessment, Summary Schedule).

Any other material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

FACTOR 3 – VOL I, TAB F - KEY PERSONNEL EVALUATION

Strengths may be given for each the following criteria:

• Key personnel that demonstrate experience that is within seven (7) years of date of proposal submission and exceeds the minimum qualifications necessary, which includes previous exemplary experience in similar type work.

• Key personnel who also worked on the projects presented in Factor 1.

Weaknesses may be given for each of the following criteria:

• Resumes that do not met the minimum qualifications necessary or clearly demonstrate the relevant capabilities and experience of the proposed key personnel.

• One (1) or more personnel with a preponderance of past projects that do not exhibit experience with projects of similar scope, magnitude, or complexity to the proposed project.

• Any other aspect that the Government identifies as a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiencies shall be given for each of the following criteria:

• Omission of one (1) or more of the resumes required for evaluation.

• Any other material failure to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level

FACTOR 4 – VOL II, TAB B – PRICING SCHEDULE

The contract will be a Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) contract. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness for the fixed priced effort. The base and all options, if any, shall be included in the price evaluation.

The RFP requires firm-fixed-price contract line items. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and that unbalanced pricing between CLINs or Options is not occurring. Price reasonableness will be determined by using proposal price analysis techniques as detailed in

FAR 15.

The Government is likely to not make award if the magnitude of construction cost set for this project is exceeded. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price analysis described above.

Bond Ability: This item is not rated. Bonding information will be reviewed to determine the offeror's ability to obtain the required Performance and Payment Bonds. The successful offeror will be required upon award to be able to obtain the level of bonding required by the solicitation from an acceptable surety.

SECTION 00 73 00 - SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS

The following Delivery Schedule for CLIN 0001 has been added:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

17-JUN-2024 1 COE FORT CROOK AREA OFFICE

JOEL FLERE

USAED, FORT CROOKCENWOO-CD-FC

525 CASTLE HALL

OFFUTT AFB NE 68113

(402) 293-6013 FOB: Destination

966560

The following Delivery Schedule for CLIN 0002 has been added:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

17-JUN-2024 1 COE FORT CROOK AREA OFFICE

JOEL FLERE

USAED, FORT CROOKCENWOO-CD-FC

525 CASTLE HALL

OFFUTT AFB NE 68113

(402) 293-6013

The following Delivery Schedule for CLIN 0003 has been added:

CAGE

17-JUN-2024 1 COE FORT CROOK AREA OFFICE

JOEL FLERE

USAED, FORT CROOKCENWOO-CD-FC

525 CASTLE HALL

OFFUTT AFB NE 68113

(402) 293-6013

The following Delivery Schedule for CLIN 0004 has been added:

CAGE

17-JUN-2024 1 COE FORT CROOK AREA OFFICE

JOEL FLERE

USAED, FORT CROOKCENWOO-CD-FC

525 CASTLE HALL

OFFUTT AFB NE 68113

(402) 293-6013

The following Delivery Schedule for CLIN 0005 has been added:

CAGE

17-JUN-2024 1 COE FORT CROOK AREA OFFICE

JOEL FLERE

USAED, FORT CROOKCENWOO-CD-FC

525 CASTLE HALL

OFFUTT AFB NE 68113

(402) 293-6013

The following Delivery Schedule for CLIN 0006 has been added:

CAGE

17-JUN-2024 1 COE FORT CROOK AREA OFFICE

JOEL FLERE

USAED, FORT CROOKCENWOO-CD-FC

525 CASTLE HALL

OFFUTT AFB NE 68113

(402) 293-6013

(End of Summary of Changes)