Offers 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 

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic 

communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

 NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office,

 appropriation data, 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)

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable
Page 2 of 7

SPE4A7-23-R-0105

The following additional updates have been incorporated into this solicitation.

1) DFARS 252.204-7021 is removed from the solicitation. The language reflected in section 

“L.9. Volume 2, Factor I, - Cyber Security” and section “M.4.1 Factor I: Cyber Security” of 

the RFP has also been updated.

2) The number of bins by each FRC building has been provided in PWS Appendix B.1.

3) The statement “For planning purposes the FRCs are working to collectively reduce the 

number of active bins by ~25% by the time the Gen IV Contract commences broken 

down as follows: 20K for FRC-E and associated satellite sites; 20K for FRC-SE and 

associated satellite sites; 25K for FRC-SW and associated satellite sites” has been 

removed from PWS Appendix B. This removal is represented by a strikethrough of this 

statement.

4) The language reflected in PWS Section 3.1 “Bin Re-Configurations (Sites: A1-A5, B1-B4, 

B6, and C1-C4)” has been changed from: “The material management fee is applicable to 

the number of active bins managed, +/-10% on a per site basis. The material 

management fee can be renegotiated and updated via a bilateral modification when a 

change exceeding +/-10% on a per site basis occurs from the time of contract award” to 

read: The material management fee is highly correlated to the number of bins that need 

to be serviced. As such, the material management fee shall be renegotiated and updated 

via a bilateral modification when a change, exceeding +/-10%, on a per site basis, occurs 

from the bin counts, as laid out in Solicitation SPE4A7-23-4-0105, Appendix B (FRC-E21,919; FRC-SE- 19,652; FRC-SW- 36,180) Such a modification will reset the new baseline 

from which a subsequent +/-10% measurement will be applied.”

5) Any reference to Jason Elliott as the DLA KO has been revised to reflect Richard 

Alexander, Jr.

Please see the below additional questions and answers associated with this solicitation.

1) Customer offers 3 days for responses to scenario-based questions. Is it 3 business days 

from the due date? Or from receipt of Proposal if submitted prior to due date?

From the date that the scenario-based questions are sent, the contractor will be given 3 

business days to provide responses. Even if a proposal is submitted prior to the RFP 

closing date, the scenario-based questions will still be sent out the Monday after the 

RFP closes.

2) Are the Bin counts in Attachment 1 Pricing Worksheet, tab entitled 'Mat Mgmt Pricing 

Template', reflective of only active Bins, or a combination of inactive and active Bins? If 

these figures include both active and inactive bins, could the government please provide 

additional data on the active vs. inactive breakout? For clarification, this information is 

sought for costing and staffing-planning purpose.

The Attachment 1 Pricing Worksheet, tab entitled ‘Mat Mgmt Pricing Template’

references PWS Appendix B. In Appendix B, the bin counts are comprised of all bins at 
Page 3 of 7

SPE4A7-23-R-0105

all locations (inclusive of remote sites) where labor would be required to service them. 

There is no benefit in the Government providing a total breakout of active vs. inactive 

bins because it would merely be a snapshot in time. The number of active and inactive 

bins continually changes as part of the normal rhythm of contract execution and 

remains subject to change at any given time.

3) Looking for clarification if Section L and Section M were to contain DFARS 252.204-7021 

along with DFARS 252.204-7012/7019/7020.

• Please clarify the requirement for DFARS 252.204-7021 (Section L and M) 

because DoD CIO "has suspended prior CMMC Piloting efforts" 

[https://dodcio.defense.gov/CMMC/about/] and this clause is not to be included 

in a solicitation before Oct 1, 2025 (DFARS 204.7503 Contract Clause).

• Also is the understanding of the statement: "Furthermore, this factor will 

confirm that the Contractor agrees that at the time the Department of Defense 

(DoD) imposes the new Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) 

process, that they will comply with the policy and secure the required 

certification, regardless of the potential that the new policy may not require 

active DoD contract holders to comply." indicate that a contract modification will 

be done to add the clause at a later time and provide for the typical contract 

modification negotiations and possible equitable adjustments?

As the current Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) is suspended, 

DFARS 252.204-7021 is removed from the solicitation. The language reflected in 

section “L.9. Volume 2, Factor I, - Cyber Security” and section “M.4.1 Factor I: 

Cyber Security” of the RFP has also been updated.

4) In addition to CAC requests, will annual certifications also be required? Will our 

subcontractors be able to work directly with the USG to submit CAC requests and annual 

certifications (if required) or will they need to be submitted through the contractor?

If there are any subcontractors that will require a CAC or annual certifications, those 

requests will need to be submitted to the Government through the contractor.

5) Are clearances only required for Contractor personnel that need to enter secure rooms 

to re-stock material or is there other classified work on the contract?

PWS Section 7 applies to all contractor personnel working on site, not just those 

servicing bins in classified areas. 

6) In reference to the following, prior Industry Day Q&A:

Q: "Beyond standard EDI Transactions - are there any other interfaces that DLA and 

Contractor will utilize in order, warehouse, invoice management?"

A: "NO"

Taking the above into consideration, the following questions require clarification IAW 

PWS Paragraph 5.0:

1. PWS Paragraph 5.0 states, "The Contractor shall use a MIS that is compatible with, 

and provides seamless interface with, existing and emerging DoD systems employed by 
Page 4 of 7

SPE4A7-23-R-0105

DLA, Defense Automatic Addressing System Center (DAASC), Defense Logistics 

Information Systems (DLIS) and NDMS." 

Question: Can the Government please provide clarification to existing and emerging 

systems employed by Defense Automatic Addressing System Center (DAASC), Defense 

Logistics Information Systems (DLIS) and NDMS? 

Currently, there are no emerging systems by DAASC and DLIS. For NDMS, the contractor 

will submit the flat file in accordance with Appendix D 6.15 “NDMS Report”.

2. PWS Paragraph 5.0 states, "Process transactions under the Military Standard and 

Issue Procedures (MILSTRIP), as necessary."

Question: This verbiage implies that the requirements are beyond the standard EDI 

transactions, which signals a contradiction to the prior Industry Day Q&A where the 

Government confirmed that "no other interfaces, besides EDI, exist. Therefore, can the 

Government please update this bullet to state: "Process transactions under the 

standard EDI transactions, as necessary."

PWS Paragraph 5.0 statement “Process transactions under the Military Standard and 

Issue Procedures (MILSTRIP), as necessary” will remain as is. This is because MILSTRIP 

Signal Code B orders are generated automatically when the contractor orders DLA 

sourced material through FEDMALL. The contractor does not self-generate a MILSTRIP.

3. PWS Paragraph 5.0 states: "The Contractor shall have a T-1 or equivalent bandwidth 

capacity at all Contractor staffed sites to ensure timely processing of electronic data." 

Question: Can the Government please provide clarification on "T-1 or equivalent 

bandwidth capacity"; if timely processing is achievable by Contractor, are bandwidth 

requirements necessary?

Yes, bandwidth requirements are necessary. The contractor is required to provide its 

own internet service provider through the government furnished infrastructure. 

7) In furtherance of PWS Appendix B, will the Government please provide number of bins, 

by building? 

The number of bins by building has been provided in PWS Appendix B.1.

8) Regarding PWS Appendix B, the Government listed Bin and NIIN counts as of January 

2023 for each of the FRC’s and associated satellite locations. In furtherance of this -

based on Amendment 001 received 24 March 2023, an additional footnote was included 

at the bottom of this Appendix stating, "for planning purposes the FRCs are working to 

reduce the number of active bins by ~25% by the time Gen IV contract commences." 

Would the government please provide the following clarifications:

There are 77.8K bins listed on Appendix B as of January 2023 (21.9K FRC-E, 36.2K FRCSW, 19.7K FRC-SE), however, the revision included on Amendment 001 Appendix B 

referencing ~25% indicates this will be reduced to 65K active bins (20K FRC-E, 20K FRCSE, 25K FRC-SW). This represents a 16% reduction in aggregate, rather than the 25% 

indicated. Additionally, on a per-site basis, this reflects essentially no-change in the FRC 
Page 5 of 7

SPE4A7-23-R-0105

SE bin quantity (remains at 20K), with most of the planned future reductions occurring 

at FRC-SW. Why is a 25% aggregate reduction indicated when the new bin counts show 

a 16% reduction? Are the 77.8K bins reflecting only active bins? If no, how many active 

bins are there today? How many active bins will be at the start of the contract?

The 77.8K bins listed in Appendix B account for all the bins. As the number of active and 

inactive bins is subject to change at any given time, the contractor should propose 

based on the current requirement of the solicitation. Although an ongoing process, the 

FRCs are continually, and systematically, working to remove inactive material from the 

PEBs to right size the number of bins needed to support operations. Bin counts change 

based on the stand-up and removal of depot production lines so providing a breakdown 

of active/inactive bins today may not necessarily be accurate at the time of contract 

execution. As such, we request that you propose based on the bins stated in Appendix 

B and B.1, while recognizing that if bin quantities change by +/- 10% at a given location,

the material management fee can be renegotiated and updated via a bilateral 

modification.

Could the government please provide additional clarity on whether they would prefer 

contractors to bid to the current bin counts on Appendix B, Column “I” or the planned 

future bin counts reflecting reductions? For context, the amount of bins being serviced 

may drive a change in the level of labor support being bid.

Contractors should propose using the current bin counts reflected in Appendix B, under 

Column I. 

How would the government prefer to handle a substantial change in bin counts 

between proposal submission and time of award? For example, if contractors are told 

that FRC-SW and associated satellite sites will be reduced to 25K & they bid assuming 

25K, and then when awarded the bin counts were actually at 30K. Would an offeror be 

deemed non-compliant if their bid was conditioned on the accuracy of the indicated 

reduced bin counts upon contract award, with the contractor being able to pursue an 

equitable adjustment?

Contractors should propose using the current bin counts reflected in Appendix B. If 

there is a change in number of bins at one or more locations that exceeds +/- 10%, the 

material management fee will be renegotiated via bilateral modification.

9) Regarding the Transition period between Apr 1, 2024 and Sept 30, 2024, and the 

incumbent contractor’s responsibility to the incoming contractor, the government 

indicated that the Gen IV contract would include FAR 52.237-03 “Continuity of Services”. 

Does the Gen III contract have a similar clause?

FAR 52.237-03 “Continuity of Services” is expected to be incorporated into the GEN III 

contract. 

Assuming the incumbent contractor’s contract expires Sept, 30 2024, Continuity of 

Services would imply that the incumbent contractor would be required to provide 

phase-out services from Oct 1 thru Dec 31, but not before then. Could the government 
Page 6 of 7

SPE4A7-23-R-0105

please clarify if the incumbent contractor has any contractual responsibility toward the 

incoming contractor during the Transition period from Apr 1 through Sept 30? For 

additional context, in order to achieve FOC by Oct 1, this would likely require the 

incumbent contractor to support the incoming contractor in the months leading up to 

Oct.1 rather than after.

Would the government consider modifying the incumbent’s contract should another 

offeror be chosen for the Gen IV contract, to ensure co-operation between the two 

contractors during the Transition period?

The Government is working to address a transition plan in the current GEN III contract 

to ensure cooperation between the two contractors, if necessary.

Does the government have a notional CONOPs for the phase-in/phase out of scope 

during the Transition period? For example, doing a site-by-site rolling wave approach 

where the incoming contractor would fully stand up / transition one FRC before moving 

to the next? We intend to propose our preferred approach to executing Transition with 

our offer with recommendations to the government, but we are seeking additional 

clarification into what is in the realm of the possible within the constraints of the 

existing Gen III contract.

The Government is working to address a phase-in/phase out transition approach from 

GEN III to GEN IV.

10) Regarding Section L.7.2:

a. Will the Government please clarify whether 8.5 x 11 Letter size in LANDSCAPE 

format is allowed?

Yes, 8.5 x 11.5 Letter size in LANDSCAPE format is allowed.

b. Will the Government please consider allowing 11x17 (landscape foldout) pages 

for tables, charts, graphs, and figures?

No, 11 x 17 (landscape foldout) pages for tables, charts, graphs, and figures are 

not allowed.

c. Will the Government please consider allowing the use of 8-point font size for 

headers & footers?

No, the Government is not allowing the use of 8-point font size for headers and 

footers.

11) Regarding Section L.8.2, Please confirm that offerors who qualify as a small business 

under NAICS code 332722 are not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting 

Plan and their proposal will not be adversely evaluated for not submitting such a plan.

Referencing FAR 52.219-9 “Small Business Subcontracting Plan”, offerors who qualify as 

a small business are not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in their 

proposal.

12) Regarding Section L.8.1, What is the duration of the Program Management Review 

(PMR)? (i.e. hours / days?)

The duration of Program Management Reviews (PMRs) is typically one day.
Page 7 of 7

SPE4A7-23-R-0105

13) As it relates to Section L.11.2, is it acceptable to include a copy of each contract as a PDF 

attachment to Volume 4 with reference in the Word submission file?

Yes, it is acceptable to include a copy of each contract as a PDF attachment to Volume 4.