Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY - FEDBIZOPPS ISSUE OF APRIL 10, 2016 FBO #5252
DOCUMENT

C -- A&E IDIQ - Attachment

Notice Date

4/8/2016
 

Notice Type

Attachment
 

NAICS

541310 — Architectural Services
 

Contracting Office

Department of Veterans Affairs;Network Contracting Office 4
 

Solicitation Number

VA24416R0156
 

Response Due

5/11/2016
 

Archive Date

8/9/2016
 

Point of Contact

donald.kalivoda@va.gov
 

Small Business Set-Aside

N/A
 

Description

This announcement is for the selection of an Architect-Engineer (AE) for an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) design contract. The location of the projects will be at the Erie Veterans Administration Medical Center, 135 East 38th Street, Erie, Pennsylvania. Work will be required on an "as needed" basis and will be awarded by use of Firm Fixed Price Task Orders. The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Price Contract. All potential offerors must provide a SF 330 containing all required information listed below. The form format must be the General Services Administration SF 330 found on the website http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/116486 Forms Library. CONTRACT INFORMATION: The AE IDIQ contract may be used for a wide range of design services. Primarily the Task Orders will be used, but not limited to, design of new commercial/industrial type facilities and to design renovations of existing facilities. All contract awards will incorporate the attached Scope of Work dated 03/30/2016. Expected A-E services may require any combination of the following: Title I - Site Investigation Services, Title I - Design Services, and Title II - Construction Period Services. This contract is being procured in accordance with the Brooks AE Act as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 36.6 and Veterans Administration Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) 836.6. Firms will be selected for presentations based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for required work. This contract is set-aside 100% for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business's (SDVOSB) capable of completing work under the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 541310. The contract will be awarded for one (1) base year and will contain an option to extend the contract for four (4) additional one year periods. Total value of the contract shall not exceed $5,000,000.00 with a minimum $5,000.00 guaranteed. The minimum guarantee for the entire contract term (including option years) will be satisfied by the award of the initial Task Order. A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract will be awarded. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Interested firms having the capabilities to perform this work must submit three (3) hard copies of Standard Form 330 (SF 330) and one (1) electronic CD copy of Parts I and II in the format found at http://www.acgov.org/pwa/documents/sf330.pdf no later than 2:00 pm on May 11, 2016. All SF330 submittals must be sent to the attention of Donald Kalivoda (90C), Erie VA Medical Center, 135 East 38th Street, Erie, PA 16504. Submissions by electronic means are NOT permitted. All questions are to be sent to the attention of donald.kalivoda@va.gov. Additionally, the submission must include an insert detailing the following information: "Dun & Bradstreet Number "Tax ID Number "The e-mail address and phone number of the Primary Point of Contact "A printed copy of the firms VetBiz Registry In order to assure compliance with FAR Clause 52.219-14(b)(1) - Limitations on Subcontracting, all firms submitting SF 330's for this Sources Sought Notice are required to indicate what percentage of the cost of contract performance will be expended by the Prime A-E firm's employees and in which discipline(s) and percentage of cost of contract performance to be expended (and in what disciplines) by any other subcontracted or otherwise used small or large business entity(s). Any subcontracted or otherwise business entity(s) used must be identified by name, office location and size/type of business (i.e. SDVOSB, VOSB, 8(a), large, etc). Personal visits by A-E firms, for the purpose of discussing this announcement or the submittal is not permitted. No contract for construction of any project shall be awarded to the firm, subsidiaries or affiliates that designed the project. Prior to submittal of the SF 330, the selected firm must be registered in System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov and must also be registered in VetBiz and be verified. SELECTION CRITERIA: The VA will use the following criteria to determine competition when reviewing the SF 330 received. If a submitting firm fails to meet these criteria they will be deemed non-responsive and shall be rated accordingly. Selection criteria as identified in FAR Subpart 36.6 and VA Acquisition regulation 836.6 will be used. The first four (4) factors are significantly more important than the other four (4) factors and are of equal weight among themselves. The remaining four (4) factors are of equal weight among themselves. A.Professional Qualifications to Perform the Services Required / Specialized Experience and Technical Competence: This factor evaluates the individual AE firm's experience of the in-house personnel and subcontractors that are to be assigned to the AE team performing task orders under this contract. The offering firms shall have provided the deliverables identified within Table 1 to evaluate this Preliminary Evaluation performance criterion. Additional information that aids in evaluating this criterion are: "The design team shall have current professional design registrations. Registrations and certifications may include: registered architect, professional engineer (PE), structural engineer (SE), certified Healthcare Facility Design Professional (HFDP), project management professional (PMP) and certified energy manager (CEM). Other desirable professional design certifications for an architectural-engineering service team include: CAD/ drafting, building envelope performance, interior design, ADA compliance, environmental regulation compliance, whole building commissioning, fire protection systems, electrical systems design, plumbing system, land surveying, geo-technical, green building construction, sustainable building, cost estimation, project scheduling, construction specification, energy engineering and management, building energy simulation, HVAC system, HVAC controls, and mechanical system testing and balancing. "Distinguish team member design project experience in which team members were leading the design discipline versus providing general executive project oversight, or providing ancillary support services in the role of a junior team member. B.Project Management/QC-QA/Client Communication This factor evaluates the individual AE firm's project management plan and tools used to insure project flow and QA/QC plan used to identify, report and mitigate shortfalls during the design and construction phases of the project. This factor also evaluates the AE's record of project change orders associated with the project. The offering firms shall have provided the deliverables identified within Table 1 to evaluate this Preliminary Evaluation performance criterion. Additional information that aids in evaluating this criterion are: "A comprehensive quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) plan. A comprehensive plan will include: Responsibility Chart (all team members). QC flow chart and schedule of QC checks, a narrative describing the QA/QC process that will be used on all proposed projects. The plan narrative and flow chart shall provide specific description of how QC shortfalls will be identified, reported and mitigated through all phases of design and construction. "Project management plan. The offeror demonstrates clear forethought and planning in managing their design projects. A competent firm will have a formal process to manage, track and respond in a timely manner to RFI's and other design/construction related inquiries. Similarly, a competent design firm will have a formal process to request, document and track requests for critical design information and owner design input. Formal template documents are evidence of a systematic approach to project management that provides the owner with evidence and information. "Descriptions project management tools and documentation used to ensure smooth project flow and clear communication with the client. A formal plan to manage variables like unexpected schedule changes, unexpected site conditions, or revised funding requirements is an indicator that a firm will have a low risk of failure. "Records of project change orders and associated additional costs. Nearly all projects experience change orders. An explanation of how the A-E prevents and handles changes orders is a valuable indicator of the firms' management and QA practices. For example a firm that doesn't know (or willing to share) their own record of change orders on past projects, is unlikely to be actively managing design QA and construction administration. C.Capacity to Accomplish Work This factor evaluates the individual AE firm's experience of the in-house personnel and subcontractors that are to be assigned to the AE team performing task orders under this contract. The offering firms shall have provided the deliverables identified within Table 1 to evaluate this Preliminary Evaluation performance criterion. Additional information that aids in evaluating this criterion are: "Competent AE's shall provide demonstrated compliance to design schedules, and timelines for deliverables while retaining enough extra capacity to maintain services during unexpected time constraints. Staffing levels across a projected future workload timeline demonstrates how much new work a firm can handle. A qualified firm that is understaffed, over-booked for the duration of the contract will have workload limitations and have higher sensitivity to schedule variation. While such limitations are not necessarily a disqualifier, they do need to be openly and honestly stated, identified and managed. "Lists of available equipment, software and other project relevant resources are another indicator of the project team's ability and competence at completing pre-design as-built investigation and post-design installation verification. Teams lacking the equipment and field verification experience, frequently struggle to maintain design quality when planning complex projects like renovations and remodels in large, aging, healthcare buildings. D.Past Performance This factor considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance. There is an important distinction between an offeror's experience and its performance. Experience reflects whether offerors have performed similar work before and can be evaluated in terms of recency and relevancy. Performance, on the other hand, describes how well offerors performed the work - in other words, how well they executed what was promised in the proposal. This distinction requires the past performance evaluation be a two-step process. The first step is to evaluate in terms of experience using Relevance Ratings and the second step is to determine how well the contractor performed using Performance Confidence Assessments. This factor also evaluates the individual AE firm's experience of the in-house personnel and subcontractors that are to be assigned to the AE team performing task orders under this contract as well as the experience and technical competence in the type of work required for general healthcare design and construction but also, where appropriate, experience in specialty disciplines like: storm water management, site planning, construction phasing and staging, parking and traffic flow impact planning, energy conservation analysis, pollution prevention, waste reduction and the use of recovered materials. The offering firms shall have provided the deliverables identified within Table 1 to evaluate this Preliminary Evaluation performance criterion. Additional information that aids in evaluating this criterion are: "This factor shall be evaluated based on the information provided by the AE firm from previous government agencies and private industries on similar type of projects, performance appraisals on file in CPARS and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and contact with personnel listed in the SF 330 regarding past performance as well as evaluation board members personal knowledge of the firm. Offeror's are urged to submit a minimum of at least two but no more than four prior contracts/orders using Exhibit C attached to this Sources Sought. "Listing of previous experience on a range of Government design projects similar to what is described in the Scope of Work. This may include general renovation of medical center space to include architectural changes of walls, ceiling, floors, finishes, masonry, doorways including hardware, plumbing including storm sewer, sanitary, hot and cold water, heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) to include, package units, variable air and constant air volume terminals with reheat., variable frequency drive air handlers, steam and condensate piping, primary and secondary electrical circuits, digital controls, fire protection to include sprinkler system, central fire and security alarms, audio paging systems, asbestos abatement and all work to return space to finished, functioning condition. Designing general construction of new space to include structural work, roofing, exterior walls, site work, site utilities and work as stated above. Design of specialty construction may include tuck pointing, asphalt paving, elevators, and complete key systems. "Record of project change orders and associated additional costs. Documentation of past change orders would include details of constructive changes in the work caused by: defective or incomplete drawings / specifications, defective interpretation of drawings and specifications, impossibility of construction contractor to perform to drawings / specifications, defective inspection and acceptance, and construction method changes. a.)The Government will rate an offeror's Past Performance at the factor level using descriptive adjectives that most accurately define the offeror's performance risk considering all potential evaluation criteria identified in this section. Relevance will be considered in the overall Past Performance rating. Ratings will consider the offeror's Past Performance considering currency, relevancy, sources, context, and trends. The Past Performance evaluation will include, but is not limited, to the following: "Quality- Management and Workmanship "Timeliness and adherence to schedule "Specification compliance "Offeror's business practices "Customer relationship "Ability to successfully perform "Overall customer satisfaction b.)To conduct the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided by the offeror, and data obtained from other sources. The Government may: evaluate present and past performance information through the use of questionnaires completed by the offeror's references (Exhibit C); use data independently obtained from other Government or commercial sources, including, but not limited to Government databases; rely upon personal business experience with the offeror. c.)The evaluation will also consider information provided relative to corrective actions taken to resolve problems on past or existing contracts and trends in performance. d.)The evaluation may take into account Past Performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition. e.)Past Performance information on contracts not listed by the offeror may also be evaluated. The Government may contact references and contact parties other than those identified by the offeror, and information received may be used in the evaluation of the offeror's Past Performance. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing current accurate and complete Past Performance information rests with the offeror. The Government reserves the rights to obtain and evaluate Past Performance information from any source it deems appropriate. f.)An offeror with no Past Performance will receive a neutral rating. g.)Currency, Relevancy, Trends: The Government will consider the currency, relevancy and trends of the performance information while conducting its performance evaluation. Exhibit C's may be used for this purpose. h.)For the purpose of this solicitation, currency is performance occurring within the last five years through the Sources Sought release date. Within this period, performance occurring later in the period may have greater significance than work occurring earlier in the period. For example, performance information for work occurring during 2013 may have greater importance than performance information for work occurring during 2010. i.)In assessing relevancy, the Government may evaluate an offeror's references for similarity of the construction methods to the scope of this solicitation, cost magnitude of projects as it relates to price, client type and location of work performed as it relates to the location of work to be performed under this contract. j.)The Government may consider an offeror's previous contracts in the aggregate in determining relevancy, should the offeror's present and past performance lend itself to this approach. For example, an offeror's work experience on three contracts may, by definition, represent only a semi-relevant effort when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may more accurately reflect a very relevant effort. E. Geographical Location / Acceptability under other appropriate evaluation criterion This factor evaluates the individual AE firm's ability (including both in-house personnel and subcontractors that are to be assigned to the AE team) to perform task orders under this contract in a timely and effective manner. The focus for this criterion is especially focused on potential advantages firms can have in knowledge of the local area and providing timely service due to close physical proximity and travel availability. The offering firms shall have provided the deliverables identified within Table 1 to evaluate this Preliminary Evaluation performance criterion. Offeror teams located closer to the project location or close physical proximity to major travel hubs (i.e. international airports) are expected to have advantage in providing timely site visit services to the contract holder during design and construction. It is also expected that a first-hand familiarity with local weather, construction practice, material and labor costs and methods would also be an advantage to offeror teams located in the same region as the location of work. Additional information that aids in evaluating this criterion are: "Evaluation criteria will be based on the time (hours) it takes for the A-E to physical arrive at the Erie VA Medical Center site after the Contracting Officer notifies the A-E. The Offeror needs to provide the mode of transportation and the number of hours that the A-E can be on site starting from the notification by the Contracting Officer. Teams of firms would need to demonstrate a project management strategy that effectively works around the various locations of the various firm offices. Neglecting to plan for this is a sign of a deficiency which would suggest a higher risk of failure. F. Reputation of Firm and its Principle This factor evaluates the individual AE firm's experience of the in-house personnel and subcontractors that are to be assigned to the AE team performing task orders under this contract. The offering firms shall have provided the deliverables identified within Table 1 to evaluate this Preliminary Evaluation performance criterion. Additional information that aids in evaluating this criterion are: "Testimonials from past clients that positively describe projects completed by the offeror. Letter of recommendation are a common source of this information. "Past project history for completed construction and AE service projects that indicates the offeror delivered services and designs that were on schedule, in budget limits and met owner project requirements. "Records of past project change orders, delays and associated additional costs from previously completed projects. Since government construction contracts have greater process complexity and a propensity for cost magnification, project performance records associated with past government jobs is especially valuable to the reviewer. F.Record of Significant Claims This factor evaluates the individual AE firm's experience of the in-house personnel and subcontractors that are to be assigned to the AE team performing task orders under this contract. The offering firms shall have provided the deliverables identified within Table 1 to evaluate this Preliminary Evaluation performance criterion. Additional considerations that aid in evaluating this criterion are: "CPARS evaluations or other government contract evaluations "Current and legal statements verifying that the offeror's team is free of past claims. "In the event past claims are present, an explanation of past claims and evidence of due diligence in resolving problems are also worthy of positive consideration. "Description of how the AE handled the problem that led to a claim is a good indicator of future performance. "Firm history of past project change orders and associated additional costs. Documentation of past change orders would include details of constructive changes in the work caused by: defective plans, incomplete plans, interpretation of plans and specifications, variations in quantity, impossibility of performance, inspection and acceptance, and construction method changes. G.Members working on projects as a Team This factor evaluates the individual AE firm's experience of the in-house personnel and subcontractors that are to be assigned to the AE team performing task orders under this contract. The offering firms shall have provided the deliverables identified within Table 1 to evaluate this Preliminary Evaluation performance criterion. Additional considerations that aid in evaluating this criterion are: "In the case of multi-firm teams, coordination and central organization, and central leadership are critical to future project success. "Repeat concurrent project experience as a team can indicate good inter-firm coordination. A lack of concurrent experience raises the risk of performance failure. " ADDITIONAL SELECTION CRITERIA: SF330 and Section H: Mandatory Additional Information Requirements All submitted offeror documentation as identified within the SF330 and this document must be individually identified in a table of contents and listed by page number. Offers must supply the following documents with the SF 330 package under Section H, Additional Information. "Comprehensive Team Profiles: Resumes of all team members (beyond key personnel listed in Section E of the SF330). Complete resumes of the line staff actually doing the work shall be included. A sequential list of employment shall be included for each resume. Each resume shall include a four-year sequential list of projects worked on. A table shall be provided at the beginning of this section that summarizes the concurrent projects the proposed members of the collective team have worked on. In the case of multiple firms proposing together as a single team, the table shall make apparent, what projects team members from each firm have worked together on simultaneously. Projects identified in the Relevant Project History shall be included. "QA/QC and Client Communication Plan. This plan shall include: Responsibility Chart (all team members). QC flow chart and schedule of QC checks, a narrative describing the QA/QC process that will be used on all proposed projects. The plan shall include specific description of how QC shortfalls will be identified, reported and mitigated through all phases of design and construction. The plan shall also effectivly demonstrate and the A-E team's ability to identify, document, track, respond to and realize client project goals. Additional narrative describing the overall QC/QA process, client communication methods, and examples of past success with the process will be evaluated positively. "Project Management Plan. A project management plan shall describe the process that will be used to manage project workload and effectively communicate with the VA on contract projects. A flow chart or other graphic representation of the offeror's process is highly recommended. The organization chart from Section D of the SF330 may be included however it shall include details of the QC, QA and project management responsibilities by the entire proposed project team. The chart and narrative shall detail how many simultaneous projects the collective project team can oversee and manage from design through construction during the duration of this contract. Management requirements for the entire team shall be described including but not limited to: owner project requirement tracking, QC reporting and mitigation, maximum RFI response and processing times, example design QC reports, example design site visit reports, example CA site visit reports. "Resource Summary: A summary table of available software (load calculation software, CFD-FEA software, energy analysis software, weather bin analysis software, etc.), equipment (i.e. TAB equipment, surveying equipment, energy auditing equipment, commissioning equipment, data loggers, etc.) and other physical resources the project team has for application on contract projects. A list of team members who have direct, hands-on experience with each piece of equipment and the duration of the individual's experience shall be shown in the table. Rentable equipment shall not be included. "Workload Summary: Summary of projected workload of each proposed firm agreeing to participate in this contract. The complete team's (all firms named listed separately) work availability (both committed and available hours) shall be shown in a Gant chart. Monthly increments shall be shown from the present until the conclusion of the contract (four years). This chart shall make clear the availability of the collective team for multiple projects under circumstances in which all disciplines where required simultaneously. "Relevant Project History. A table shall be provided that summarizes the projects demonstrating the firms' qualifications and experience. At a minimum, the example projects from Section F in the SF330 shall be included along with or including the 10 most recently bid projects. Each project shall be summarized stating in separate columns: project size (area), team members who participated, project type, duration (NTP for design to construction closeout), estimated construction cost, completed constructed cost, scheduled year of completion, actual year of completion, % over schedule, number of change orders, added costs from change orders. Projects that are still in design or under construction shall be clearly labelled. Projects that didn't actively team members identified in the comprehensive team profile shall not be included. Since government construction contracts are unique from commercial construction contracts, project performance records associated with past government jobs are especially valuable to be included. "Performance References: References from current and past clients for projects identified in the Relevant Project History. Accurate and current contact information for follow up shall be included along with a description of the projects and project dates and participating team members that have worked with the reference. All past and present Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) evaluations shall be printed and included within this document. "Past Performance Verification: A signed, and dated affidavit for each proposing firm stating that no claims have been filed against the firm or individuals in the firm. The affidavit shall be notarized within 90 days or less of the date of submission. If the firms or team of firms has claims, a detailed explanation shall be provided explaining each claim, its date, circumstances, cost effects and any awarded damages that were awarded. The A-E shall include a description of the efforts that were made to rectify the claims and fix the problem in question. The reviewers will not automatically fail an offering team for having claims, however the evidence presented to explain the reason and efforts made to solve the problem will be evaluated. A firm that doesn't know (or willing share) their own record of change orders on past projects, is unlikely to be actively managing design QA and construction administration. "Work Samples: Samples of the process forms, work documentation, studies and reports that are used and will be produced by the A-E on projects. Process and documentation forms that should be included are: design QA/QC checklists, project schedule reports, progress reports to the client, request for design information memos, design project progress reporting, construction administration (CA) site visit report, CA site visit checklists), owner project requirements, etc. Example reports that shall be included are: life cycle cost analysis studies, feasibility studies, project narratives, energy studies, site evaluation survey reports, storm water management plans, historic preservation documentation (i.e. SHPO/NHPA)), NEPA/CATEX evaluations, commissioning plans, etc. This document section allows the A-E to demonstrate the quality and thoroughness of their documentation. A lack of meaningful submitted content is an indicator of a deficiency in the firm's project management and documentation methods. Table 1 Preliminary Evaluation Selection criteria and Documentation Missing or incomplete additional information constitutes and incomplete submission. Past Performance Information - Offerors are urged to provide Past Performance information using the Past Performance Questionnaire format, Exhibit C, attached to this Sources Sought. These past performance questionnaires will be used to evaluate the offerors past performance on previous/current as part of this selection process. Offerors shall prepare and submit to prior client(s) on any of the projects listed on your SF 330 submittal using the Exhibit C samples. Completed Performance Questionnaire(s) shall be mailed to: Erie VA Medical Center, Contracting Office, 135 E. 38th St, Erie, PA 16504-1596 so as to arrive not later than the closing date for receipt of SF 330 submittal. Reference packages may also be emailed to donald.kalivoda@va.gov. NOTE: Offeror or subcontractor must not review the Past Performance Questionnaire prior to submission. They must be submitted by the client/evaluator directly to the Contracting Officer. After the Preliminary Evaluation is completed the most highly qualified A-E firms will be notified by the Contracting Officer that they are invited to provide Oral Presentations in person. A formal letter will be issued to these firms and will be evaluated on the following criteria: H. Team proposed for this Contract II. Proposed management plan III. Previous experience of proposed team IV. Location and facilities of working offices V. Proposed design approach for this project VI. Project control (management, cost control, problem solving) VII. Estimating effectiveness VIII. Sustainable design IX. Miscellaneous experience & capabilities X. Awards XI. Insurance and litigation IMPORTANT NOTE TO OFFERORS: All deliverable documentation (including supplementary documents required to be included in the SF330 Section H) shall be individually identified in a table of contents and listed by page number. The Government source selection committee is not responsible to find unlabeled or poorly organized documentation. Within the submitted offerors proposal packages (OPP). Deliverable documentation that cannot be readily located in entirety is at risk for being deed absent or incomplete from the OPP.
 

Web Link

FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/VA/PiVAMC646/PiVAMC646/VA24416R0156/listing.html)
 

Document(s)

Attachment
 

File Name: VA244-16-R-0156 VA244-16-R-0156_1.docx (https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=2663973&FileName=VA244-16-R-0156-000.docx)

Link: https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=2663973&FileName=VA244-16-R-0156-000.docx

 

File Name: VA244-16-R-0156 S02 Exhibits C - Past Performance Questionnaire 3-08-16.docx (https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=2663974&FileName=VA244-16-R-0156-001.docx)

Link: https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=2663974&FileName=VA244-16-R-0156-001.docx

 

File Name: VA244-16-R-0156 P01 SOW for A-E IDIQ - Revised 3-30-16.doc (https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=2663975&FileName=VA244-16-R-0156-002.doc)

Link: https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=2663975&FileName=VA244-16-R-0156-002.doc

 

Note: If links are broken, refer to Point of Contact above or contact the FBO Help Desk at 877-472-3779.
 

Record

SN04078512-W 20160410/160408234543-ae9754ec8c4e712c508add035732f40c (fbodaily.com)
 

Source

FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

---

| FSG Index  |  This Issue's Index  |  Today's FBO Daily Index Page |