SEA_05_ESS_QA_10-8.pdf

NAVSEA 05 Engineering Support Services Procurement Q&A October 8, 2014

1. Q: Are there any incumbents for this work? If so, can you please provide the contractor names and contract numbers?

A: Yes, there are incumbents for this work.

N00178-04-D-4030 EH02 CSC

N00178-04-D-4061 EH04 Gryphon N00178-04-D-4066 EH04 Alion

2. Q: Slide 9 of the Industry Brief uses the term “All Function-Specific work.” What does this mean?

A: Function specific work is work that crosses the other five areas of work on the slide, such as the major headings in the SOW. For instance business financial management, security, information technology, and program management are necessary for each individual task. That work is likely to be required across all of the areas of work, but it is not anticipated to be the subject of orders in and of themselves, as are the other five bullets on the slide.

3. Q: Will the 7 task order competitions be separate from the MAC IDIQ competition or will they be simultaneous? If yes, what is the planned time interval?

A: We plan to solicit for most, or all, of the task orders concurrent with the MAC IDIQ solicitation.

4. Q: Does the Government intend to make both Step 1 MAC IDIQ awards and all Step 2 Task Order Awards in the same procurement based on a single submission package?

A: Any task orders that are solicited concurrently with the MAC IDIQ will be solicited within the MAC IDIQ solicitation package.

5. Q: Slide 11 of the Industry Brief states, “Three or more IDIQ contracts- will exceed 3 if necessary to cover full scope of work in SOW.” Wouldn’t it be necessary to award sufficient MAC IDIQs to have least two highly qualified bidders for each of the several task orders in order to ensure competition at the task order level?

A: The Government plans to award MAC IDIQs to the offerors who demonstrate the best value to the Government in the majority of the task orders described under the MAC IDIQ solicitation. In so doing, the Government believes it will have multiple awardees capable of competing for each Task Order. The Government may award additional MAC IDIQ contracts to offerors who demonstrate expertise in fewer Task Orders as necessary to ensure adequate competition for each task order. The Government is unable to say at this time how many MAC holders it will consider adequate for competition;

however, the Government will likely desire least two eligible MAC holders for each Task

Order. One of the many reasons adequate competition is desired under every task order, even those task orders awarded simultaneously with the MACs, is to allow the Government to re-compete any task order if the Government chooses not to exercise the options under a task order award.

6. Q: Understanding SEA 05 desires a comprehensive team providing a full range of support, are Offerors required to address the entire SOW (all 7 Task Orders) to be competitive for IDIQ MAC award?

A: Offerors are not required to have experience in or submit offers for all of the task orders. As described in the previous question, the Government’s intention is to award MACs to offerors who demonstrate the best value in the majority of the 7 technical areas currently considered, although we reserve the right to make awards, as needed, to ensure adequate competition for each task order.

7. Q: The Government has indicated that they will make more than three MAC IDIQ awards “if necessary to cover full scope of work …” What is the standard for adequate “coverage”? One fully qualified vendor per SOW area? Two? Three?

A: See the answer to questions 5 and 6.

8. Q: Will prime offerors for the IDIQ be required to propose against all areas of the SOW?

Will they be required submit offers for all of the baseline task orders?

A: See the answer to questions 5 and 6.

9. Q: Will there be any engineering services included in the SOW for the Seaport-e Professional Support Services procurement mentioned on Slide 12 of the Industry Brief?

A: The SOW for the Seaport-e Professional Support Services procurement has not been finalized. Please continue to check the Seaport-e portal for more information on that procurement.

10. Q: Slide 16 of the Industry Brief states, “Primes must perform minimum of 40% the work.” This requirement could prevent an MAC IDIQ team from offering the best value solution to the Government on an individual task order if applied at the task order level.

Will this be applied at the MAC IDIQ level or at the task order level?

A: The Government imposed a 40% requirement under the previous procurement. The Government’s benchmark for establishing the 40% requirement under the previous procurement was the requirement in FAR 52.219-14(c)(1) that prime contractors must perform 50% of the work under small business set-asides. The Government found that the 40% requirement under the previous procurement provided for a good mix of prime contractor and subcontractor performance and ensured prime contractor accountability.

The Government intends to carry the requirement forward to the new procurement and will apply the requirement at the task order level.

11. Q: Typically, the NAVSEA Organizational Conflicts of Issue (OCI) clause reminds offerors that certain existing contractual arrangements may preclude, restrict or limit participation, in whole or in part, as either a subcontractor or as a prime contractor under a competitive procurement. The clause then identifies issues of primary concern including those contractual arrangements in which the Offeror provides support to, or in support of, an operation of an office or any of its programs. Will the SEA 05 solicitation identify the five domains under the Chief Systems Engineers (CSE) and the seven domains under the Technical Domain Managers (TDM) as areas of concern under the OCI clause? And will any additional domains be added for consideration?

A: The following language will be included in the solicitation:

“Due to the nature and scope of the work encompassed by this solicitation, the Government requires that there be no conflict which would preclude the prime contractor from performing any portion of the Statement of Work, regardless of whether it intends to subcontract that portion. Due to the nature of the work outlined in Section C, the Government anticipates that organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs), including impaired objectivity OCIs, will arise for Offerors that perform under other contracts within the cognizance of SEA 05 as prime contractor or subcontractor for hardware, software, system design, integration, production, or in-service engineering and maintenance of the systems that will be covered by this solicitation The Government is most concerned about potential OCIs in the following scenarios: (1) when a contractor’s work under one Government contract could entail its evaluating itself or a related entity, either through an assessment of performance under another contract or an evaluation of proposals (impaired objectivity OCIs); (2) when performance of the work under this solicitation would place an Offeror in a position to make technical, design, or programmatic recommendations that would include hardware, software, system design, integration, production, or in-service engineering and maintenance of systems provided by the Offeror’s organization; or

(3) when the performance of the engineering and technical direction described in Section C would create the situation prohibited by FAR 9.505-1 because the Offeror is currently a prime contractor, subcontractor, or consultant on a contract for the supply of a system covered by this solicitation or any of its major components.

Therefore, if any Offeror may have an OCI, or if any Offeror has taken any steps to eliminate an OCI and the Offeror believes that the conflict no longer exists, the Offeror must notify the Government and must submit an OCI mitigation plan with its proposal. Failure by an Offeror that has identified a potential OCI or an eliminated OCI to submit an OCI mitigation plan with its proposal shall be considered grounds for disqualification from award. The Government will not accept mitigation measures for impaired objectivity OCIs. For any OCI, the Government will not accept mitigation or elimination measures that: (1) create an additional burden on the government to implement; (2) involve directed subcontractors or creating separate lines of reporting or any modification to the Government/prime contractor relationship; or (3) are deemed in the sole discretion of the contracting officer to provide insufficient organizational independence between the prime contractor or a subcontractor under this contract and a prime contractor or subcontractor for hardware, software, system design, integration, production, or in-service engineering and maintenance of the systems that will be covered by this solicitation.

This is not an exhaustive list of measures that will be considered inadequate to protect the Government. It is an illustrative list provided in an effort to ensure that all Offerors understand the Government’s expectations and intent to avoid OCIs. The Government reserves the right to determine whether or not any mitigation plan provided by an Offeror is sufficient to protect the Government. The Government also does not intend to accept any mitigation measures that involve additional oversight or commitment of resources by the Government, such as agency review of contractor deliverables, internal review of task assignments for OCI before issuance, or formalized monthly reviews of work performed and projected. All Offerors are directed to review and comply fully with the OCI clauses included in Sections C and L of this solicitation (ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (NAVSEA) (JUL 2000) and NOTIFICATION

OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT(S) OF INTEREST (NAVSEA) (JUN 1994)

respectively).”

12. Q: At the Industry Day, it was highlighted that affiliates of OEMs and Systems Integrators would have a conflict of interest for this work. Does the Government consider this to be a SETA contract under DFARS 209.571, which would prevent any prime contractor from participating as a subcontractor under NAVSEA MDAP or pre-MDAP programs?

A: Yes, FAR part 9 and DFARS 209.571 apply. Portions of the work may be considered SETA. The Government will address OCIs on a case by case basis in accordance with FAR part 9 and DFARS 209.571. See also the answer to question 11. This NAVSEA-specific OCI language provides additional guidance on how OCI questions are resolved.

13. Q: Will the Navy confirm that the solicitation is not going to be released as a Seaport-E solicitation?

A: Currently, the Navy does not intend to issue the potential solicitation via Seaport-E.

The solicitation will be released via FedBizOpps at https://www.fbo.gov/ . If this plan changes, the Government will announce the change on FedBizOpps.

14. Q: Will the ceiling for each IDIQ award be based upon the level of effort for the identified task orders or will there be additional “headroom” for emergent requirements?

A: For some of the task orders, there will be additional hours in the Not To Exceed (NTE) value for emergent requirements within the scope of the Statement of Work (SOW). These hours for emergent work will be identified in the applicable task orders.

https://www.fbo.gov/

Additionally, under the initial MAC IDIQ there will likely be additional hours to allow for potential emergent task orders within the scope of the Statement of Work.

15. Q: Are the “Estimated Work Hours” on Slide 18 representative of total award or Base Year only?

A: Base Year

16. Q: The planned solicitation adds to the scope of existing contract (notably adding Warfare System Engineering), but at a significantly lower number of hours compared to the previous solicitation. Does the Navy anticipate a reduction in overall level of contractor support for the new solicitation?

A: The Navy does not anticipate any significant changes in the combined scope of the new MAC IDIQs and task orders as compared to the existing contracts. It is difficult to compare the old contracts to the new MAC IDIQs and task orders because a different structure is used to distribute the labor categories and hours between the tasks.

Additionally, as stated in the answer to question 15, the estimated hours provided at industry day is only for the base year.

17. Q: How will the ceiling value and the level of effort be determined for each IDIQ award in Step 1 of the Government’s process?

A: The ceiling value for each MAC IDIQ will be specified by the Government in the RFP as a Not to Exceed (NTE) value. The Government will determine the ceiling value based on the Government requirements, while allowing room for emergent work.

18. Q: At Industry Day, the commentator noted that the total value of the opportunity was about $500M. However the hours assigned, which the commentator stated were annual, do not seem to align with the stated total value given a reasonable hourly rate. Can you confirm the anticipated total value of the opportunity?

A: The estimated value accounts for more than simply an hours to labor rate ratio. The estimated valued accounts for other factors/costs such as potential emergent work competed under additional task orders, other direct costs, materials, etc. The total value of the task orders will be stated in the RFP, and will be approximately $500M.

19. Q: Does the Navy have a notional schedule for the Task Order competition?

A: The Navy contemplates issuing RFPs for the many of the task order competitions as a part of the overall RFP for the MAC IDIQs. These task orders will be awarded simultaneously with the MAC IDIQs. No schedule has been established for additional task orders at this time.

20. Q: In accordance with Slide 11, it is understood that the Government intends to award an IDIQ MAC to 3+ Primes. Does the Government intend to make more than 1 award to a specific Task Order?

A: One award per task order.

21. Q: Since the government highlighted the highly technical nature of the requirements, how will the required experience, knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) of the personnel be specified? Will the government define labor categories to eliminate the variability in the Senior/Mid/Junior model used recently on PSS solicitations? If not, how will the government evaluate the minimum experience and KSAs required for offeror proposed labor categories?

A: The evaluation criteria, as well as the instructions to the offerors will be clearly stated in Sections L and M of the potential RFP. The Government will consider adopting specific definitions for experience levels and labor categories. The Government will also consider other aspects of labor categories in order to ensure it has the information it needs to properly evaluate offerors.

22. Q: Regarding the evaluation of "approach to fulfilling the SoW requirements with their proposed team members/personnel," will the Government be evaluating the Offerors' technical approaches (i.e., how we specifically respond to a technical requirement) or the staffing approach (what type of resource we would supply with definition of the skills, education and experience to respond to the SOW requirements)?

A: The Government will evaluate technical approach, as well as experience of its proposed team members and personnel. See also question 21

23. Q: What is the expected relationship between the labor categories and rates bid for the IDIQ and those that will be bid for the individual task orders?

A: Some of the labor categories in the MAC IDIQ may be somewhat general. There is the potential that the labor categories from the MAC IDIQ will be broken out with more specificity at the task order level. The cost information required for the tasks orders will be very specific and tied to the individual task orders. The cost information required for the MAC IDIQ will be much more broad.

24. Q: Will Past Performance only be evaluated at the IDIQ MAC level or will it be evaluated again on subsequent TO competitions?

A: Past performance will be evaluated at both the IDIQ MAC level and at the task order level.

25. Q: Please confirm that the “Tripwire” test will be performed on a labor category basis.

Will the Government provide guidance on how to justify the appropriateness or reasonableness of rates above the Tripwire average hourly rate of $156/hour?

A: The $156/hour threshold for the “tripwire” documentation will be applied to the rates proposed. If labor rates are proposed for individual personnel, it will be applied to individual personnel. If the RFP permits labor rates to be proposed on a labor category basis or as a composite rate, then the threshold will apply to the labor category rate or composite rate. The tripwire analysis is an internal Government analysis that does not require offeror involvement.

26. Q: The Government has encouraged teaming. Is it acceptable for a prime contractor to be a subcontractor on one or more other bids?

A: Yes

27. Q: Given the changing nature of the requirements, will it be possible to add teammates after award of either the IDIQ or of individual task orders? If permitted, will the Contracting Officer consent required under FAR 52.244-2 be the IDIQ PCO, the Task Order PCO or the appropriate ACO? If the Prime has a DCMA approved purchasing system, what subcontract types will require consent under FAR 52.244-2? Will it be permissible to add unsuccessful offerors after award?

A: Yes, consent will be required under FAR 52.244-2. Teammates may be added after award, including unsuccessful offerors, with the consent of the contracting officer. The task order contracting officer will be the same as the IDIQ contracting officer. All subcontracts added after award will require consent from the contracting officer regardless of whether or not the prime contractor has an approved purchasing system.

28. Q: Given the Government’s desire for full-range teams, will a DCMA approved purchasing system be a requirement for an IDIQ Prime award?

A: The Navy intends to include FAR Clause 252.244-7001 in the solicitation and resulting contracts.

29. Q: We appreciate the opportunity to seek clarification of the information provided at the recent Industry Day. However, release of a Final RFP typically results in another round of clarifying questions before a meaningful start on the proposal can be made. Given the ambitious schedule for this opportunity, we respectfully recommend release of a Draft RFP as early as possible to resolve any issues prior to the start of the formal solicitation process.

A: Although we recognize the benefits of releasing a draft RFP, our schedule does not permit us to do so. There will be an opportunity to submit questions when the RFP is released.

30. Q: During the Industry Day presentation on 27 August 2014 for the NAVSEA 05 Engineering Support Services RFP one of the slides presented showed that the solicitation would be issued on 09 October 2014 with the Proposal Submission Deadline being 21 November 2014. Is this still the current schedule? If not, can you tell us when the RFP will be released?

A: The solicitation will not be released by 09 October 2014. Please continue to monitor FedBizOpps at https://www.fbo.gov/ for updates.

https://www.fbo.gov/